Patterico's Pontifications

7/5/2013

Context You May Not Have Heard for the Hawthorne Dog Shooting Incident

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:58 am



You may have seen this viral video of Hawthorne police shooting a dog:

Where people come down on this, in 99% of cases, will have everything to do with their general attitudes towards police, and nothing to do with the facts. I’m realistic; it’s the Internet and it’s human nature and I can’t fight it.

For the other 1% of you, here is the context for what happened.

The dog’s owner is someone with a history of confrontations with police and resisting arrest. He has a lawsuit against the city and arguably had a motivation to start another confrontation that he could add to his lawsuit:

He said Monday he believed police were retaliating against him because of previous run-ins and struggles with officers. Court records show he has previous convictions for resisting, battery and driving under the influence. Rosby, who is black, said he has filed six complaints against the Hawthorne Police Department, alleging mistreatment and racial profiling.

Rosby filed a lawsuit against the city of Hawthorne and two police officers in March, contending officers broke one of his ribs when they responded to a domestic violence disturbance at his house, not far from the dog shooting scene.

He showed up to the scene of a standoff with a suspected violent felon (a robber) and started blasting his music so police could not hear what was going on:

As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.

“It’s distracting the officers,” Swain said. “It’s interfering with what they are able to hear. It’s not just a party call. It’s an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what’s going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it’s distracting them.”

Martinez said the Usher song “Tell Me Again” was looping over and over.

Rosby, who pulled out his own cellphone to record the police activity, did not lower the volume.

“I do apologize if I didn’t immediately comply. The music may have been a little loud but I was complying,” Rosby said. “I said, ‘Sir, I want to make sure nobody’s civil rights were being violated.'”

A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the officers asked him to turn the music down, but he refused. Rosby, she said, responded, “It’s my (expletive) radio!”

You can hear the people taping this video talking about the “blasting” music, saying “I can’t hear shit” because of it. You can hear the dog owner yelling at the officers about how the lack of black officers at the scene is a “civil rights violation.” At this point the dog owner has already been asked to turn the music down and has profanely refused, making the officers’ jobs in arresting a violent felon more difficult. He has obstructed police and is subject to arrest, but they wait until the situation with the robber is under control before dealing with him.

Finally, police arrest him, and the dog jumps out of the car to defend his owner and is shot.

I feel bad for the dog, that he had such an irresponsible owner.

Now, Anonymous is threatening to retaliate against the police department (there has already been a DDOS attack), and people are leaving death threats against officers on the police department’s Facebook page:

A May 26 post honoring Hawthorne police Officer Andrew Garton, who was killed two years ago in a motorcycle crash in Torrance, turned Monday from a place to offer condolences into a stream of nasty comments.

“Better to have served honorable and died early, than to have been part of a department so full of greed and corruption,” Eric Beasley wrote. “Enjoy your time in Heaven, Officer Garton.”

Daniel Drobish wrote: “If your boys like playing with their guns so much, we should ship THEM over to Afghanistan. Then GOOD men and women won’t have to die!”

On a post about a “Coffee with a Cop” program, where police meet the public at a McDonalds restaurant to talk about their concerns, Keith McMahon wrote: “Throw the hot coffee in their faces!!!” He followed it with “I’ll have coffee with ya! I’ll poison you so you die a slow painful death … !”

Wrote Debra Smith: “I will have coffee with these cops, if the coffee is heated to boiling and I can pour it on their trigger fingers.”

Here is the chief talking about the threats and the incident, and all the protective measures the P.D. is now having to take because idiots on the Internet are threatening cops, and families of cops, including some who weren’t even there but have similar names to those of cops who were at the scene:

It must be fun to be threatened for doing your job — trying to arrest a violent suspect — while some jerk tries to interfere with you. Where can I apply for that job?

846 Responses to “Context You May Not Have Heard for the Hawthorne Dog Shooting Incident”

  1. Oh. Yes. There’s always “context” when cops transform a non-violent situation into a violent one and murder pups, isn’t there?

    CTD (0d0f3f)

  2. “why is he not at a safe distance”

    He’s at least half a block away from the nearest cops, and apparently just across the street form the guy shooting the video.

    CTD (0d0f3f)

  3. My son once had to shot a pit bull when it charged him, a second time, while he was in foot pursuit of a suspect. The owner was upset, but neighbors who saw the incident defended my son’s actions, and she eventually calmed down ( at least for blaming my son for “killing the dog for no reason”).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  4. The armed robbery suspect was already in custody at the time of the puppycide. So their “job” was done. This was a contempt of cop arrest.

    CTD (0d0f3f)

  5. I agree with the cops. I don’t care if the arrest was justified or not, the cops are not obligated to treat vicious dogs better than humans. If a dog is coming at you and wants to kill you, the cop can shoot.

    On a personal note, I have been severely bitten by a big dog who was unleashed because he was “always peaceful.”

    Patricia (be0117)

  6. Don’t have much faith in my own local police forces based on what I see here in South Florida. You’re supposed to obey speed limits, but some of the cops drive exceedingly recklessly/fast not for work-related reasons. That’s one example. Perhaps the citizen in the present case deserves what he got. I do wonder if the cops will be around at all if and when blacks go on a rampage should George Zimmerman be acquitted. The media whips idiots into a frenzy. Most all the women I talk to want “justice” for poor, angelic Trayvon, the thug. At least one reporter did show that the thug had his criminal acts in high school swept under the rug by the school district police.
    Here’s the latest cop thing that pops up: In Nevada, as reported by intellihub.com, police arrest and assault a family for refusing to allow a stakeout in their home. They were also shot with “pepperball rounds” and are suing the department. The police wanted a “tactical advantage” in a neighbor’s domestic dispute?? Cops shot him and the dog and later arrested the resident and his elderly parents for “obstructing justice”. Any thoughts? I have no idea what powers the police have in this regard but I wonder how many departments will emulate the actions of the IRS, Eric Holder’s Justice Dept., the TSA and the NSA. And what of Choom’s desire for a domestic brown-shirt army? Or the treaty allowing for Russian troops into the US for crowd control? Or shipping US troops to Egypt for riot control? Isn’t there anyone who will rein in government gone amok? It sure isn’t the likes of McCain, Graham or Rubio.

    calypso louie Farrakhan (53ccf5)

  7. I feel bad for the dog, that he had such an irresponsible owner.

    Where I come down on this issue has nothing to do with my attitude toward cops. It as to do with my attitude toward dogs. And really animals in general.

    If I can carry capsaicin spray to deal with bears when I’m hunting deer or caribou in Alaska, then cops should have some non-lethal weapon to deal with dogs. The circumstances of this particular case don’t change the equation.

    I don’t blame the individual cop. But it strikes me as reflective of an us-them attitude on the part of police in general that they don’t come up with some other method of dealing with dogs other than shooting them.

    I just hear about too many of these incidents in which the training these police officers is obviously deficient. For instance a while back an officer responded to a suspected domestic violence complaint from a neighbor but went to the wrong address in Austin. A guy playing Frisbee with his dog and encountered the officer when h went to get something out of his truck in the driveway. The cop drew his gun and told the guy to put his hands up. The dog charged out of he backyard and he then told the guy to control his dog.

    How you do that with your hands up I don’t know. The guy with the gun trained on him didn’t know either (that part is left out of the story at the link). So the cop shot the dog. Then he found out he was at the wrong address.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/austin-police-chief-apologizes-michael-paxton-dog-shooting/story?id=16163996#.UdbrRj0o7UA

    The Austin PD has changed its training to include non-lethal methods for dealing with dogs. It’s about time. More PDs need to follow their example. I understand perfectly that sometimes a cop needs to shoot a dog. I don’t understand why they don’t commonly explore other options first.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  8. How many shots did it take to bring down the animal? I suspect the police were using a 9mm. Looks like a .45 is a better choice to actually stop anything if it takes three or more shots to bring down a 90 pound animal.

    Not going to jump to any conclusions on this one. I’ll leave that for Obama…

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  9. Oh, and I’ve had to use pepper spray on a large dog before. It stopped the dog but he didn’t release his grip in the least. I’ll never take that risk again. If I am attacked by a dog, I’ll shoot…

    WarEagle82 (2b7355)

  10. I’ve never had to shoot a dog. I cracked a pit bull over the head with a shovel handle. I don’t know how many grains a shovel handle weighs compared to a 230 grain .45 cal bullet but it was enough to do the job. When the cops finally responded to the call about the neighbor’s druggie kid who left all the doors and the gates open, and the TV blasting, when he went off looking for his next fix they said they could hear the dog whimpering in the garage.

    That was an aggressive dog. Even so whacking it over the head seemed to adjust its attitude. The neighbor’s druggie kid didn’t change his ways but the dog stopped causing trouble even when the kid left the door open.

    Most dogs aren’t vicious. They’re good watch dogs; they’ll bark at a stranger. Very few will actually confront a stranger. This isn’t conjecture on my part. A good friend of mine back in Sandy Eggo ran a kennel and did Schutzhund training. The right combination of qualities were rare in a dog. Usually they weren’t confident enough, and sometimes they were aggressive beyond the ability of the owner to control.

    Unfortunately my Chesapeake fell into the latter category. He had what’s known as “rage syndrome.” He’d just snap. So I got rid of him because I won’t have a vicious dog.

    Still I saw enough dogs getting evaluated and talked to enough breeders and kennel operators to know most dogs aren’t like Ricky and you don’t need to shoot them.

    I wouldn’t recommend waiting until the dog got ahold of you to use the pepper spray, though.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  11. I’m your natural blog constituency – law and order conservative. When you’ve lost me, Patterico, you have to know you’re in trouble.

    An imbecile could tell that this was not a dangerous dog (I’ve had a lot to do with dogs, but it it doesn’t take much familiarity to notice this). For an 80+lb Rottweiller his aggression was very restrained and measured given the circumstances and offered no material threat to the officer. He got angry – pure and simple – and used unwarranted lethal force, with no attempt to have anyone restrain the animal (I counted at least five patrol cars in addition to the SWAT van). Lack of self control with a firearm is not a good combination for a police officer.

    If this is the behavior that is captured with cellphones, I would hate to think what behavior was displayed before cell phones.

    Tom (e20bda)

  12. But….but…..he’s just a community organizer.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  13. I agree with Tom. That dog was not vicious. He clearly didn’t like what the cops were doing with his owner. Who is an a**hole, no doubt about it, for putting his dog in that situation. But the dog was obviously undecided about what he was supposed to do about it.

    The cops had plenty of time and opportunity to deal with that dog but apparently their “officer safety” training only gives them one tool. Shoot it.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  14. Are we supposed to give police officersd training in identifying dangerous dogs?

    The moral here is that police should assume everything they do is being recorded on a cell phone.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  15. Everyone seems to want a different solution than killing the dog. What is that solution when a solution is needed immediately? It would be nice to be able to take your time, call animal control and have them come out and take care of the aggressive dog, but the situations cited in comments don’t seem to be the type that lend themselves to standing around and waiting for animal control to arrive.

    Contrary to what some of the commenters seem to be thinking, shooting a dog is not something that is done lightly or is enjoyed when it has to be done. The paperwork alone is horrendous and that’s not including the probable ensuing lawsuit.

    Steve57, there are non-lethal tools to deal with dogs, just not ones that can be carried on the Sam Browne. Think about this; 1 belt, 1 gun and holster, 2 sets of handcuffs, 1pouch for CPR mask/first aid kit, Baton, Keys and a Taser. not much room for anything else.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  16. Patterico–

    When opening the blog the still picture from the video which is framed–of the dog at the moment of being shot– is unfortunate, IMO. It will likely prevent some/many of us from viewing the vid and considering the context you seek to examine. The iconic Elian Gonzlez picture kind of came to mind. I don’t think that’s what you were going for, though.

    elissa (ec1d50)

  17. 14. …The moral here is that police should assume everything they do is being recorded on a cell phone.

    Comment by AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 7/5/2013 @ 10:14 am

    Including the fact they can’t grasp the obvious. They walk up on a guy they know has a dog, and they can see the dog’s in the back seat of a car with the windows down.

    What did they think was going to happen?

    Are we supposed to give police officersd training in identifying dangerous dogs?

    Only police training could cause someone to be so obviously clueless. How many cops were around and none could be spared to get the dog before he went out of control? I never would have let it get to that point, but then I don’t have the handicap of police training replacing common sense.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  18. /snark/ They should have, years ago, shot the owner /snark off/

    askeptic (2bb434)

  19. As for ID’ing “dangerous dogs”: Isn’t that part of USPS training?
    If the Postal Service can deal with “dangerous dogs”, one would think that the police, who deal with all levels of threats, could do so without resorting to the “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” school of action.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  20. There was a lot of observable human idiocy going on. That dog did not need to die.

    elissa (ec1d50)

  21. Lbcatcher, you forgot the radio and spare mags. Plus most cops I know carry a spare gun and a knife.

    Point being they can find room for something if they feel they need it. So I’m not persuaded that they couldn’t find room for a can of pepper spray. As a matter of fact most of the cops I know carry that, too.

    I don’t think cops shoot animals lightly. I know one of the Dallas PD officers on the response team that shot Jabari, the gorilla that escaped from its enclosure back in 2004. He didn’t like doing it. He would have much preferred that the zookeepers had been able to shoot it with a tranquilizer gun.

    When you get down to it it’s not a matter of how much equipment you can fit on a Sam Browne belt. Don’t these cops have something between their ears except bone? I’ve watched the video several times and even if I didn’t know the dog was destined to be shot I could see the sequence of events unfolding from a mile away.

    If these guys didn’t want to shoot the dog, why did no cop on the scene had the common sense to get control of the dog while it was still controllable? That video is like watching a bad horror movie where you and everyone else except the guy or chick in the flick can see what’s about to happen. Absolutely nothing that happened in that video was a surprise. The only surprise is people are defending the cops for not having a plan to deal with a glaringly obvious situation.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  22. @Lbcatcher Where was the immediacy? The guy was already handcuffed. The dog offered no material threat. Another officer could have taken a leash – 5+ patrol cars were there. Animal control is necessary to avoid killing an animal? If that’s the case, then why is everybody surprised that they’re getting bad press?

    Does anybody here seriously believe they guy didn’t lose his temper?

    It also bothers me that he didn’t even have the decency to put the dog down humanely after he shot him and it he was immobilized – at least that wasn’t apparent in the video.

    Tom (e20bda)

  23. I have no idea why my last comment is in a quote.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  24. The cops shot the wrong “dawg”.

    And Hawthorne police carry MP5s. Cool. I wonder if they have full auto or just 3-shot burst.

    nk (875f57)

  25. I don’t think grabbing the leash as being a good option. Unless you think grabbing a snake by the tail will not get you bit.

    MSL (098f99)

  26. How about telling the guy to put his windows up? Not an option?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  27. An imbecile could tell that this was not a dangerous dog (I’ve had a lot to do with dogs, but it it doesn’t take much familiarity to notice this). For an 80+lb Rottweiller his aggression was very restrained and measured given the circumstances and offered no material threat to the officer–Tom

    Sorry, Tom, I can’t agree with you on this one. I’ve watched the video several times and I can tell you this-if I was out for a walk with my wife and a 130 lb Rottweiler approached her, jumping up and yapping at her in her face, I would shoot it right then and there.

    It also bothers me that he didn’t even have the decency to put the dog down humanely after he shot him and it he was immobilized – at least that wasn’t apparent in the video.–Tom

    So, you think that the officer should have fired a coup de grace shot to the dog? Really?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  28. The cops knew this guy was an anti-cop guy who had filed numerous complaints and a lawsuit. He wimped out on an interview on KFI the day after it happened.

    Until we can construct robots with perfect judgment in every situation, no matter how heated, I will give the cops the benefit of the doubt here.

    My friend did an ER rotation after medical school and after what he saw, he never allowed a big dog into his home and warned his friends to do the same.

    Patricia (be0117)

  29. I tend to agree with Steve that the dog being loose was a problem that could have been anticipated, and that there was time to deal wth that before making a point with Mr. Recalcitrant by cuffing him.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  30. @Calfed

    I would shoot it right then and there. You are an ordinary citizen without support. Neither condition is present here.

    So, you think that the officer should have fired a coup de grace shot to the dog? Really? The dog is writhing in pain, has three gunshot wounds, little chance of survival and no chance of medical attention. Wouldn’t you?

    Tom (e20bda)

  31. Police behavior was off. The police knew the dog was there and knew they were going to arrest the owner, one cop should have gone to the car and handled/reassured the dog while they approached the owner to arrest him. There seems to have been no shortage of officers on the scene nor a need to make an immediate arrest. This was a very poorly handled situation.

    max (131bc0)

  32. The Online Petition to STOP THE KIND OF ANIMAL BRUTALITY and ABUSE of POLICE POWERS

    http://www.change.org/petitions/police-unlawful-arrest-and-animal-brutality-prosecute-the-corrupted-hawthorne-cops

    Joey Chaves (f6cae3)

  33. The dog is writhing in pain, has three gunshot wounds, little chance of survival and no chance of medical attention. Wouldn’t you?

    Comment by Tom (e20bda) — 7/5/2013 @ 11:15 am

    Headline:

    Police Officer Executes Already Disabled Puppy

    Film at 11

    peedoffamerican (127915)

  34. It was the dog owner’s responsibility to secure the dog in the car when he put it back in there before walking to the the police to submit to arrest.

    The video clearly show the police leaning down to grab the dog’s leash before the dog leaps up in the air at the police, which prompted the shooting. F_ck a bunch of the police need to nice to strange big dogs leaping at them nonsense.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. The dog is writhing in pain, has three gunshot wounds, little chance of survival and no chance of medical attention. Wouldn’t you?

    Nope. There is no chance that I would finish off a dog that no longer represented a threat to me. Especially with a bunch of people standing around with video cameras. Dogs have survived gunshot wounds before and I have no training in veterinary medicine.

    I especially would not execute a dog off in full view of crowd that could turn hostile after witnessing something like that.

    As for me being “an ordinary citizen without support” that is really neither here nor there. My comment was a response to your opinion that “An imbecile could see that the dog was not dangerous”. It looked dangerous enough to me that were it to do what it did on the video to my wife, I would put it down.

    The officer made several attempts to grab the dog and was met by snarling and possibly snapping (it is hard to tell from the video). That is more than I would do and probably more than he needed to do.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  36. Where people come down on this, in 99% of cases, will have everything to do with their general attitudes towards police

    Well, the problem is, everyone has a reason to distrust the police now. It is possible that all the stupid/ill-advised/bad/mean/cruel things police do across the country are the most widely publicized, but the fact that many of things happen to ordinary people in addition to criminals, and that those ordinary people have no recourse is frightening. Does the media overplay it? Sure. But the police bear the initial blame for doing stupid shit.

    If you want a populace to trust you, don’t start thinking with your badge and the illusion of power it gives you.

    Boston going on lockdown, with the citizens having no recourse, is the prime example of this. Not one member of the police (that we know of) thought this was a bad idea.

    So the point is not that the dog died. The point isn’t the facts at all. The context of this incident is irrelevant to the broader context of police/government gaining more and more power over average, ordinary people just trying to live their lives, and their eagerness to use it.

    Moriah Jovan (2b7c3b)

  37. popo station houses should have signs out front what say

    NO PUPPIES SHOT IN XX DAYS!

    serving our community with conscientiousness and élan!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  38. How many shots did it take to bring down the animal? I suspect the police were using a 9mm. Looks like a .45 is a better choice to actually stop anything if it takes three or more shots to bring down a 90 pound animal.

    With due respect, you have been taught dangerous nonsense.

    Unlike center-file rifles which cause so much tissue damage their bullets can frequently destroy organs in passing, all commonly carried handguns are very underpowered. With the exception of suicides (i.e., well-aimed head shots at contact range), hand guns used in a confrontation kill almost always by vascular damage, and most people survive handgun wounds: 6 out of 7 survive confrontation-related handgun wounds! Of those that do die, they often bleed out and can fight for several minutes afterwards.

    There is a reason the military went with 9mm: carries more rounds and you can put more holes in people, increasing the odds they’ll bleed out. “Stopping Power” of handguns is essentially marketing gibberish: an experienced trauma-team doctor’s perspective with data to back it up.

    Handguns are good as a deterrent; and with repeated shots, can often stop people. But the vast majority of handgun deaths are suicides aimed at their central nervous system. I’m not saying there aren’t arguments in favor of a .45, but what you believe on this subject, WarEagle82, is far removed from medical reality. I hope this information is helpful for you and others.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  39. Unless commenters here familiar with working with large dogs can demonstrate that the officers on the scene in the video had the same level of knowledge to determine whether a large dog leaping at them was a potential danger or not, it appears to be PETA level stupidity to suggest that the officers could not defend themselves.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. @Calfed

    I reviewed the video a number of times since your earlier comment about the dog jumping at the face (which I don’t think he did, btw, but that’s moot). I was wrong about the reasonable interpretation of the dog’s aggression. I concede that by that point, the officer could reasonably assume he wasn’t going to be able to restrain the dog – by himself anyway – and that does change the situation’s dynamics and reduces his options.

    Your subsequent point about crowd hostility is well taken. Your point about video cameras is not.

    Tom (e20bda)

  41. As for this video, I see a guy videotaping police peacefully.

    Then I see the police, carrying slung carbines, come to arrest him.

    I see him putting his dog in his car so it would be away from the confrontation and, in the moment, not having the time or insight to properly secure the dog.

    I see the police handcuff the man, who submitted to this immediately upon being approached by the police.

    Then I see the police rough him up!

    Why were the police acting so thuggishly?

    Then, at this point, the dog escapes and is shot.

    The questions are:

    1. Why was this man arrested for videotaping police? Even if he was speaking up or whatever, which he’s supposed to be allowed to.

    2. Why did the police rough him up?

    Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but that video looked awful for those two officers.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  42. 34.It was the dog owner’s responsibility to secure the dog in the car when he put it back in there before walking to the the police to submit to arrest.

    The video clearly show the police leaning down to grab the dog’s leash before the dog leaps up in the air at the police, which prompted the shooting. F_ck a bunch of the police need to nice to strange big dogs leaping at them nonsense.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/5/2013 @ 11:27 am

    Given that they were prepared to give the suspect a number of commands to effect the arrest, one more command instructing him to secure the dog in the car would have been appropriate. And as far I’m concerned was screaming out to be given.

    Then they wouldn’t have had to try to make nice with the dog before shooting it. They could have left it for animal control, seeing as how a lot of people think only specialized government employees could have dealt with that dog.

    There’s a conflict here I can’t resolve in my own mind. If that dog looked so dangerous, then why wouldn’t the cops tell the owner to secure it before stepping away from the car. It seems to me that anyone who could have handled a traffic stop could handle that task. Unless cops are trained to shoot the dog in the back seat before issuing a ticket out of “officer safety” concerns.

    On the other hand if that dog wasn’t dangerous enough to make sure it was secured, why did they shoot it?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  43. i like that boom boom pow
    dawg feelin frisky now?
    pups try to cramp my swagger
    stand back cause this might splatter

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  44. The guy who blasted the music should have been arrested–not for videotaping the officers on a public street, which too many of our keystone cops fail to recognized as a constitutionally protected right–but for interfering with legitimate police activity and risking lives.

    As for shooting the dog, it was a sick and cowardly response. I pray the killer cop is prosecuted and incarcerated, and that he is able to experience close and intimate contact with his fellow prisoners.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  45. @ Former Conservative

    1. Why was this man arrested for videotaping police? Even if he was speaking up or whatever, which he’s supposed to be allowed to.

    I believe that he drove up to a situation involving a barricaded armed robbery suspect. His vehicle was blaring loud music, making it difficult for the officers to hear what was going on at the scene. They asked him to turn down the music and he refused. That is obstruction and he was arrested for it.

    2.Then I see the police rough him up!

    Can you identify by minute and second in the video where you see the police “rough him up”? I’m looking and can’t see it.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  46. @ Steve57

    If that dog looked so dangerous, then why wouldn’t the cops tell the owner to secure it before stepping away from the car.

    It looked like the owner put the dog in the car before the arrest. Obviously, he should have rolled the windows completely up. Before the owner was arrested, however, I did not see the dog act aggressively and the dog’s actions seem to surprise everyone…even the owner.

    If the dog’s owner didn’t expect the dog to act aggressively, is it really surprising that the officers were also caught by surprise?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  47. even if he’d rolled up the windows the piggy pigs would’ve arrested him for animal endangerment

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  48. Justified shooting, no question about it, and I like dogs. But the facts are clear as a bell, it was the dog owner’s misbehavior that caused the incident.

    It sure as hell wasn’t the dog’s fault his owner is a screaming jerk and abundantly deserved getting locked up for interfering with LEO’s and carelessly exposing them to jeoprady. The dog was defending his owner and his owner is the one to blame for his death, and no one else.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  49. “why did they shoot it”

    Steve57 – I would look for your clues in the videotape instead of creating hindsight hypotheticals for what might have been done differently. We don’t know the words exchanged between the officers and the person arrested although from the post we know he was noncompliant with police commands.

    Self-defense works fine for me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. the good thing about the police its it’s a useful mechanism for filtering thuggy fascist momotards out of the general population and putting them in easily-recognizable uniforms so they are easily shunned

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  51. *is* it’s a useful mechanism I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  52. Steve, you’re right, I forgot the Mags and radio. The point is that there is no extra room, particularly for something to handle a situation as rare as an attacking dog.

    The consensus seems to be that the dog should have been restrained before the arrest. How do you do that, what gives anyone authority to go into the suspects vehicle or handle the dog which was not with the suspect at the time of arrest? Who volunteers to approach a dog in his own car, even one acting as calm as this one did before the arrest? Some mentioned telling the suspect to restrain his dog before he was arrested. Why would the cops have done that, did the dog indicate he was mean before he snapped at the officer who shot him? Does that mean that you would have let a known cop hater go back into his car? Do any of us have any idea what was in that car? They would have been stupid to let anyone acting like he was to get back into their vehicle, much less someone they knew was hostile to cops, particularly Hawthorne cops.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  53. I believe that he drove up to a situation involving a barricaded armed robbery suspect. His vehicle was blaring loud music, making it difficult for the officers to hear what was going on at the scene. They asked him to turn down the music and he refused. That is obstruction and he was arrested for it.

    OK, thanks for the explanation.

    Can you identify by minute and second in the video where you see the police “rough him up”? I’m looking and can’t see it.

    2:57-3:01

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  54. Maybe Dana will condemn the dog for following Rosby instead of staying in the car.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  55. Former conservative, look again. It appears that the suspect was being taken to the police car and then tried to go back toward his vehicle. The Officers didn’t allow him to. That is not “roughing him up”.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  56. @ Former Conservative

    2:57-3:01
    The camera seems to be jostled about that time, but I can’t see any roughing up.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  57. piggy pigs should axe themselves

    what have i done today to communicate to the people i serve that I value freedom and human dignity?

    but they don’t cause of first of all they is so so dumb that it’s really a huge ask

    second of all there is this problem: they don’t actually value freedom and human dignity

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  58. @Lbcatcher Where was the immediacy? The guy was already handcuffed. The dog offered no material threat. Another officer could have taken a leash – 5+ patrol cars were there. Animal control is necessary to avoid killing an animal? If that’s the case, then why is everybody surprised that they’re getting bad press?

    Does anybody here seriously believe they guy didn’t lose his temper?

    It also bothers me that he didn’t even have the decency to put the dog down humanely after he shot him and it he was immobilized – at least that wasn’t apparent in the video.

    Comment by Tom (e20bda) — 7/5/2013 @ 10:43 am

    Tom, at 3:19 the dog appears to go at the Officers knees or ankles when he tried to get to the leash. At 3:22 or so the officer tries again for the leash and the dog appeares to snap at his face area. Officer then shoots the dog. It seems to me that if a different officer tried for the leash
    it would have resulted in a different officer shooting the dog.
    Just for my information, how would having the leash in hand have kept the dog from going after whoever had it in his hand? A catch pole was needed, not a leash.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  59. Former conservative, look again. It appears that the suspect was being taken to the police car and then tried to go back toward his vehicle. The Officers didn’t allow him to. That is not “roughing him up”.

    That’s total B.S.

    You have to be either massively biased in favor of the police to see it that way.

    The suspect was facing away from the car, and had cooperated with his arrest all along. Right before this time you say he was trying to get back to his car, the officer, despite the cooperation of the suspect, swept the suspect’s foot off to the side from behind. This caused the suspect to lose his balance momentarily, which led to both police officers roughing up the handcuffed suspect, and the dog’s reaction and then death.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  60. Calfed, wouldn’t it be prudent for an officer to assume every dog they don’t know will bite? I don’t understand why they’d take a suspects word. I would have told the suspect to secure the dog; any suspect, not just this one.

    Lbcatcher, you can make someone put up their windows without letting them back in the car. How hard is that? If they can handle a traffic stop they could have handled that. As far as “extra” pepper spray is standard issue in a lot of PDs. It’s not extra.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  61. either

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  62. sorry hit submit too soon.

    Catch poles are not standard police issue, there are usually a couple on animal control trucks.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  63. Do any of us have any idea what was in that car?

    Yes. A large, unsecured, and potentially dangerous Rottweiler.

    So you’re claiming the Hawthorne police couldn’t have walked the guy back to his car and had him roll up his windows without losing control of the situation? Interesting; it’s like you know them. Because from where I’m at it looks like they were planning on losing control of the situation from the start.

    Maybe we have a point of agreement, Lbcatcher.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  64. Catch poles are not standard police issue, there are usually a couple on animal control trucks

    Windows are standard issue on cars.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  65. Lbcatcher, you can make someone put up their windows without letting them back in the car. How hard is that? If they can handle a traffic stop they could have handled that.

    I bet you can’t tell me how to get the windows up without the suspect possibly getting access to something in the car.

    He is going to either have to open each door to roll up the window giving him access to whatever is in the pouches on the doors, or open the drivers door and lean in to turn on the key. Either option is a non starter because it gives him access to whatever he may have in the car and gets the officers too close to an angry dog. Pretty basic stuff.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  66. Catch poles are not standard police issue, there are usually a couple on animal control trucks

    Windows are standard issue on cars.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:30 pm

    Wouldn’t want to work with you on patrol, think it through man. This guy hates cops, why on earth would you want to let him anywhere near his car?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  67. I bet you can’t tell me how to get the windows up without the suspect possibly getting access to something in the car.

    The suspect who was cooperating with his arrest totally and whose “offense” was playing loud music and videotaping while walking his dog?

    If police are that pathetic, and it looks that way, no wonder they get bad press.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  68. Why aren’t the clearly not-anonymous people leaving death threats facing charges?

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  69. Gosh, crappyfeet, I hope you have to rely on the “piggy pigs” for your safety some day.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  70. Steve, I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.

    There was no way to know that the calm dog was going to get aggressive so no reason to have him lock the dog in the car.

    The dog did get aggressive and got shot when his owner got arrested for interfering in a barricaded suspect and felony arrest situation. NOT the Officers fault.

    IF the decision had been made that the dog would get aggressive during the arrest, you still haven’t explained a safe way to roll up the standard issue windows without allowing a known cop hater access to the interior of the car.

    I know that windows are standard issue on cars and that comment is why I think you are being deliberately obtuse. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and contributes nothing. Catch poles are standard issue to animal control which you may not have known so I mentioned it.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  71. 65. …Wouldn’t want to work with you on patrol, think it through man. This guy hates cops, why on earth would you want to let him anywhere near his car?

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:36 pm

    I never trained to be a patrol officer. I have been trained and have done crowd control in the Navy. Believe it or not, we get protesters.

    And frankly I wouldn’t want to work with you given all the excuses you come up with for these officers’ complete and total lack of situational awareness.

    They were only prepared to take control of the suspect. They were boresighted on that. That’s the kind of thing we trained to avoid in the Navy. It’s the kind of tunnel vision that leads an aircrew to crash a plane while trying to figure out why some warning light for some system that has less of a PK than the ground is lighting up. Or leads you to get shot down, so focused were you on getting a shot at the target ahead of you, you forgot to look behind you.

    You’re trying to tell me that no police department in the history of the world has ever confronted a situation in which they had to arrest a suspect with a potentially dangerous dog unsecured in his car? (And by potentially dangerous I mean any dog because that’s my default position.) And no one has a plan to deal with it.

    Then we really need cops claiming they don’t want to shoot dogs. They clearly do. Or else they would come up with a plan to deal with the extremely common situation of arresting people accompanied by dogs.

    Other than just planning on shooting the dog. Which is what you’re telling me, Lbcatcher, is the preferred course of action.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  72. I agree with Tom. That dog was not vicious. He clearly didn’t like what the cops were doing with his owner.

    And that made him vicious.

    QED

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  73. I bet you can’t tell me how to get the windows up without the suspect possibly getting access to something in the car.

    The suspect who was cooperating with his arrest totally and whose “offense” was playing loud music and videotaping while walking his dog?

    If police are that pathetic, and it looks that way, no wonder they get bad press.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:37 pm

    WOW! That’s what you got from this post? No wonder you’re a former conservative.

    Might I suggest that you re-read what Patterico wrote and watch the Chief’s video?

    I notice that your comment didn’t answer the question.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  74. Gosh, crappyfeet, I hope you have to rely on the “piggy pigs” for your safety some day.

    that’s so mean

    but I try so hard for to be safe and self-reliant my biggest worry is bears

    I don’t have a good plan for in case of bears

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  75. The cops’ attention was focused on securing Rosey when they were startled by the dog’s sudden arrival in close proximity behind them. They immediately acted to protect themselves and get control of the dog.

    The dog made several attacking lunges at the officers who then shot the dog. The dog’s death rests on the carelessness of the owner and nowhere else.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  76. Might I suggest that you re-read what Patterico wrote and watch the Chief’s video?

    I notice that your comment didn’t answer the question.

    It has nothing to do with the facts of what led up to the dog being shot.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  77. Lbcatcher, I’m not being obtuse.

    As I’ve said my default position is that every dog I don’t know is dangerous. The owner may not even realize it. I have had enough experience watching dogs being evaluated to see if they’re good candidates for protection dog training to know a lot of owners are surprised by their dogs.

    One of the tests for instance is that someone walks past the dog and suddenly pops open an umbrella. As might happen if you were walking your dog down a city street. Most dogs jump back. A few dogs snap and shred the umbrella. That disqualifies the dog right away.

    How hard is it to train cops to default to the position that every dog they’re dealing with will snap if they’re surprised? Every dog is dangerous, just like every gun is loaded.

    And how hard is it to come up with a plan to secure the damned dog? What were they going to do even if the dog didn’t attack them? Put the guy in a squad car and hope animal control got there before it jumped out of the obviously open windows of the car and ran away, with the potential of hurting a child?

    When I say this dog was obviously not vicious, as I’ve said earlier, that simply means these officers had plenty of time to come up with a plan before it made up its mind. Even a dog that isn’t naturally vicious can become dangerous if you stress it enough. I’ve seen Golden Retrievers that have become sheer terrors, but it took a lot of abuse to get such a naturally good natured dog to that point.

    No, I wasn’t the one who abused them. One of the dogs I have now is a rescue dog.

    I’m not buying the idea they couldn’t let the guy near the car because he might have had a weapon in there. For two reasons. First, we know he had a weapon; the dog. Second because the weapon may have been stashed somewhere under that untucked shirt or in those baggy shorts. But they were unconcerned about that.

    Here’s a thought. The cops have weapons, too. Let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun. Escort the guy back to the car and tell him exactly what to do, in a nice calm voice so you don’t disturb the dog, if he wants to avoid him or his dog getting shot.

    Or cuff him, bring him back to his car and tell him to lean in and talk to the dog while a cop puts up the window.

    Dunno. What I do know is that if it were my line of work, and I expected the public to believe that I don’t want to shoot dogs, I’d train to somehow deal with dogs with a lesser degree of force than shooting them.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  78. I never trained to be a patrol officer. I have been trained and have done crowd control in the Navy. Believe it or not, we get protesters.

    And frankly I wouldn’t want to work with you given all the excuses you come up with for these officers’ complete and total lack of situational awareness.

    They were only prepared to take control of the suspect. They were boresighted on that. That’s the kind of thing we trained to avoid in the Navy. It’s the kind of tunnel vision that leads an aircrew to crash a plane while trying to figure out why some warning light for some system that has less of a PK than the ground is lighting up. Or leads you to get shot down, so focused were you on getting a shot at the target ahead of you, you forgot to look behind you.

    You’re trying to tell me that no police department in the history of the world has ever confronted a situation in which they had to arrest a suspect with a potentially dangerous dog unsecured in his car? (And by potentially dangerous I mean any dog because that’s my default position.) And no one has a plan to deal with it.

    Then we really need cops claiming they don’t want to shoot dogs. They clearly do. Or else they would come up with a plan to deal with the extremely common situation of arresting people accompanied by dogs.

    Other than just planning on shooting the dog. Which is what you’re telling me, Lbcatcher, is the preferred course of action.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:49 pm

    Steve, first off glad to hear you were in the Navy although I knew that from you mentioning numerous times in the past although I don’t know what crowd control has to do with this situation.

    I don’t know if they were only prepared to take control of the suspect or not, how do you know that? It may be true, what part of the video did you see that indicated that they should not have been “boresighted” on the arrest of a known cop hater? Whatever it was, I missed it.

    I I don’t think I ever said that no Police department in the history of world has ever confronted a situation where there was dangerous dog in the car of a suspect. Please don’t say I have said things that I clearly haven’t, that would be petty and not very honest. If fact that would likely be a straw man argument.

    I don’t care if you really need something or not, if you think that I am lying about not wanting to shoot dogs, say that. You’ll be just as wrong about that as you are about saying that shooting a dog is a preferred course of action.

    I am still waiting your solution to getting the windows up without letting the suspect get inside the car.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  79. Not having watched the video, and only seen the screen shot at the beginning of this post, this Rottweiler appears to be of a size the precludes describing it as a “puppy”, the use of which would indicate a high degree of sarcasm, or a definite anit-police bias.

    BTW, the switch from the M1911A1, to the M9, is one of the great screw-ups in a long line of screw-ups by Army Ordinance, witness all the SpecOps units going back to 45’s.
    The cops, OTOH, aren’t restricted by the Geneva Conventions on bullet choice, and the market has developed some very effective JHP rounds in both 9mm and .40SW – but not as effective as a JHP in .45acp.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  80. 70.

    I agree with Tom. That dog was not vicious. He clearly didn’t like what the cops were doing with his owner.

    And that made him vicious.

    QED

    Comment by Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:50 pm

    No, it agitated him and made him potentially dangerous. But not vicious. The arrest didn’t change the dog’s basic nature.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  81. Rosby was so intent on harassing the cops he put his car windows down so his loud music could interfere with police communications. When Rosby put his dog in the car he neglected to raise the widows to prevent the dog from escaping his confinement.

    Rosby never should have brought the dog, he never should have used his auto sound system to interfere, he should have taken care of his dog. Rosby caused the incident, start to finish.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  82. Lbcatcher, I bounce a couple of ideas around about getting the car windows up while maintaining control of the situation in #75.

    I also raise the question of whether or not the cops ever had a plan to secure that dog. Suppose it didn’t attack them. What then? Just leave it in the car with the windows down to eventually jump out and wander the streets of L.A. I guess.

    I’m not calling you a liar. But I’m flabbergasted that somehow the expectation is that the cops shouldn’t be prepared to deal with completely foreseeable events.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  83. The officer fired four rounds from either a 9mm or .40SW pistol (it looks like a Glock 19 or 23), and the dog was severely wounded.
    If anyone came upon an animal that was in that condition (say from being struck by a car), the humane thing to do sans medical attention, is to finish them off. That’s why vets usually carry a pistol in their bags (or at least did when I was growing up on a dairy), and why animal control officers are generally armed.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  84. Steve, I answered your75 and lost it somehow.

    Basically I said that i liked the tone of that 75 comment as compared to the others. Your solution to getting the window up was good and a fairly common one. You failed to take into account that the dog jumped out the window of the car when Rosby was cuffed. There was no way to foresee that happening as the dog was calm before that. Blaming the Officers for any of this is not right.

    The dog would not have been left in the car, animal control would have been called and he would be impounded until Rosby was either released, bailed out or someone went to get him.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  85. That effin’ assh*le did everything he could to facilitate the shooting of his dog. I’m so tired of seeing this attitude taken by the criminal element against the police. Too effin’ immature/stupid to even follow simple directions and then they wonder why bad sh*t happens.

    Colonel Haiku (53554e)

  86. There was no way to foresee that happening as the dog was calm before that. Blaming the Officers for any of this is not right.

    When the suspect was standing up unable to use his hands to balance him, was not propped up against a vertical plane, and the police officer swept his leg to the side from behind, him losing his balance was forseeable.

    When the police overreacted, as thugs, and roughed him up, they provoked the dog, motivated by love, to respond.

    Then they shot the dog.

    So yes, it was forseeable … you sweet a handcuffed guy’s leg, he may lose his balance or instinctively react to that. You then get aggression with him, you and another person, his dog — left by an open window — may jump out.

    You’re just defending the police out of your conservative pro-certain-authority bias.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  87. *sweep

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  88. *aggressive

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  89. @ Steve57

    Here’s a thought. The cops have weapons, too. Let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun. Escort the guy back to the car and tell him exactly what to do, in a nice calm voice so you don’t disturb the dog, if he wants to avoid him or his dog getting shot. –Steve57

    So your idea is to march the guy over to his car at gunpoint and have him get into the car, insert the key in the ignition so he can roll up the electric windows?

    Really? That seems like a good idea to you? Seriously?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  90. “He said Monday he believed police were retaliating against him because of previous run-ins and struggles with officers. Court records show he has previous convictions for resisting, battery and driving under the influence. Rosby, who is black, said he has filed six complaints against the Hawthorne Police Department, alleging mistreatment and racial profiling.”

    This idiot is a racist, malevolent, malcontent with a chip on his shoulder. And if the idiotic, look-ee-loo bystanders would’ve been “counseling” the idiot to behave with a little more civility instead of watching the show unfold, there might have been a happier ending.

    Colonel Haiku (53554e)

  91. You failed to take into account that the dog jumped out the window of the car when Rosby was cuffed. There was no way to foresee that happening as the dog was calm before that. Blaming the Officers for any of this is not right.

    Not really. What I’ve been saying is the dog should have been secured while it was still calm. It’s entirely predictable that a dog will become agitated when it sees its owner getting arrested. No one enjoys the experience, the dog will understand that people are doing to the owner something the owner doesn’t like, and that will stress the dog.

    My tone in the other comments reflects my amazement that cops aren’t prepared to deal with dogs. This can’t be a rare occurrence. You know what’s rare? Actually having to shoot somebody. The vast majority of cops I’ve known have ever had to shoot somebody. Which is saying a lot; my uncle was a battalion chief in a large metropolitan fire department and there were always cops and firefighters hanging out at his place from way back when I was a kid. I knew a cop who was shot; paralyzed from the waste down. But I don’t recall ever meeting a cop who had to shoot somebody. They all knew cops who did, they just personally never did. Yet they trained for it.

    It seems to me that some corporate knowledge must have been lost over the years because I also don’t remember any of them shooting a dog. Or even knowing anyone who had. I can’t imagine any f the guys I grew up around letting the situation get out of hand like I see on this video. The dog was nice and calm and in the car and they would have figured out a way to keep it that way. At least the “in the car” part.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  92. I think this thread has deteriorated into argument for the sake of argument.

    Patricia (be0117)

  93. @84

    You know, I actually went back and re-watched the video. I feel like an idiot for doing that, having read your comments in the past. There was no overreaction, the suspect was controlled and started back to his car.

    There was no leg sweep, the least competent officer would have put him on the ground with even an attempted sweep. It’s really simple and a fairly safe way to get a resisting arrestee to the ground to control him.

    Are you seriously saying that a dog that “may” jump out of a car window is a foreseeable? The damn dog was calm until the arrest.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  94. Former Conservative, what did the police do to you to elicit you to hate them ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  95. 87.@ Steve57

    Here’s a thought. The cops have weapons, too. Let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun. Escort the guy back to the car and tell him exactly what to do, in a nice calm voice so you don’t disturb the dog, if he wants to avoid him or his dog getting shot. –Steve57
    So your idea is to march the guy over to his car at gunpoint and have him get into the car, insert the key in the ignition so he can roll up the electric windows?

    Really? That seems like a good idea to you? Seriously?

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:46 pm

    No. Try rereading what I wrote. I never mentioned anything about unholstering a weapon. Not like that would have been a factor for the guy with the slung carbine.

    I can’t imagine that three cops could be taken by surprise by a guy seizing a weapon out of a car, with the windows rolled down and everything observable, after warning him exactly what will happen if he doesn’t do exactly as instructed and only as instructed.

    But then I wouldn’t have been surprised by the entirely foreseeable reaction of a Rottie sitting in the back seat of a car with all the windows down as I arrested its owner. I guess that takes a professional.

    It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like my ideas. Like I said, if it were my profession I’d wargame this out so I could come up with a workable solution. If the police aren’t willing to bother to do that then it’s impossible to believe they don’t want to shoot dogs.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  96. @84 again

    I forgot about, You’re just defending the police out of your conservative pro-certain-authority bias.

    Whatever that means.
    Wrong again. You just don’t seem to be able to get any of your guesses correct. My read on the situation is based on 30 years of Law Enforcement both in LAPD and Northern Ca.

    I know what I am talking about and you have feelings about what/how it should be done. Police work seems to be the one job that the most uninformed can do better than the trained professional.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  97. 91. …Are you seriously saying that a dog that “may” jump out of a car window is a foreseeable? The damn dog was calm until the arrest.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:55 pm

    Have you ever been around a dog in your life?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  98. You know, I actually went back and re-watched the video. I feel like an idiot for doing that, having read your comments in the past. There was no overreaction, the suspect was controlled and started back to his car.

    There was no leg sweep, the least competent officer would have put him on the ground with even an attempted sweep.

    Your bias is massive.

    I didn’t say the officers tried to take him to the ground martial-arts style. The officer swept the suspect’s foot and thus leg to the side while the handcuffed many was standing upright, leading to him to lose his balance, and both officers to go aggro on him, causing the dog to defend the owner.

    You’re not blind. Your mind is just biased and you’re unable to see past it.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  99. It really doesn’t matter if you don’t like my ideas. Like I said, if it were my profession I’d wargame this out so I could come up with a workable solution. If the police aren’t willing to bother to do that then it’s impossible to believe they don’t want to shoot dogs.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:05 pm

    Steve, cops don’t want to shoot dogs. Trust me. Cops don’t want to shoot anything but paper targets at the range. To believe anything else is really sad.

    Wargame away. Let us all know how many dog shootings by cops you come up with, should be something to google. I just know you can do this better than anyone on HPD, send them the results of your study.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  100. There is a lot of stupid Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread.

    No, you don’t take an arrested suspect back to his own car. Period. That’s the kind of stupidity that gets cops killed.

    SPQR (768505)

  101. Unfortunately, once things get to this point, I don’t know that the cops can take as many chances.

    Ordinarily I would really prefer an officer use his baton or spray on the dog, but there were just too many variables at this point. It’s sickening to see that poor dog suffer so much just because he defended his owners and friend, which is only a selfless and good deed from the dog’s loyal perspective. That owner put the dog in that situation. He was initially walking around with the dog fully aware of what that meant, and then he didn’t secure the dog in the car. The officers had no idea it was going to come out, but he likely knew it was a strong possibility if not a certainty.

    The owner should be charged with animal cruelty. I do wish the police had ended the dog’s suffering immediately.

    I’m not sure what kind of society this drunk driving loser is hoping to create, but it’s not one I want to be in.

    And if the idiotic, look-ee-loo bystanders would’ve been “counseling” the idiot to behave with a little more civility instead of watching the show unfold, there might have been a happier ending.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53554e) — 7/5/2013

    You are definitely on to something there. Do we want a society where people do not stand up to jerks, leaving it to the law forcing matters when the reach extremes? I’d much rather live in a community where people care to speak up. I guess that’s just another divide. Do we want to live around George Zimmermans or Mr Rosbys?

    Dustin (303dca)

  102. You’re not blind. Your mind is just biased and you’re unable to see past it.

    My read on the situation is based on 30 years of Law Enforcement both in LAPD and Northern Ca.

    Ah. Seen.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  103. @57

    Let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun. Escort the guy back to the car…–Steve57

    I never mentioned anything about unholstering a weapon–Steve57

    So, Steve…when you say “let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun”.. If not the police, whose “drawn gun” would the suspect be trying to outdraw?

    Doesn’t a “drawn gun” imply an unholstered weapon?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  104. The dog owner was fortunate he was not hit by a ricochet.

    mg (31009b)

  105. 94. …I know what I am talking about and you have feelings about what/how it should be done. Police work seems to be the one job that the most uninformed can do better than the trained professional.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:06 pm

    Do the professionals train to deal with dogs? Other than shooting them?

    Because dogs will surprise you. That should be the first thing they teach cops about dogs. It can be the most mundane thing. For instance people are often surprised that their housebroken dog pees on the carpet when they bring it to their friend’s house. Just because you’ve taught the dog not to pee in your own house doesn’t mean the dog understands it can’t pee in any other house.

    You never know what a dog will do in a new circumstance. Not even the owner can know that.

    The damn dog was calm until the arrest.

    Key words. Until the arrest. That changes things. Dogs are pack animals. The dog was calm while it was with its pack leader. Now you, Mr. Police Officer, have just forcibly separated the dog from its pack leader.

    You really expect the dog to behave the same afterwards as the dog did before? That’s impossible. Even the calmest dog is going to be stressed by suddenly being thrust into he position of deciding what it has to do. Up until that point that was the responsibility of the pack leader.

    That dog was calm before precisely because he wasn’t on his own. Arrest the owner and all of a sudden he is. Watch the video again; you can see the dog’s confusion. He doesn’t know what to do. It isn’t like he immediately committed to an attack like a truly vicious dog would.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  106. @96

    Nobody said he tried to take him to the ground. I said if there had been a foot sweep he would have gone to the ground. That is the purpose of a foot sweep. Are you saying that the Officers colluded and planned this and yet the only result was the suspect was restrained and kept upright? What a colossal waste of effort (minimal as it was).

    Earlier you made comments about how bad it was that the Officers didn’t realize they were being video taped. Do you really think in the day and age that every Officer in the world doesn’t realize that just about every thing they do is being recorded, some of by dash cam? it seems that you will say anything to further your point of view, no matter how ridiculous.

    Try going for a ride along with your local PD or SO, it might open your eyes.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  107. In the Denver metro area, there is actually a cop on trial for felony animal cruelty for shooting a dog. In that case, however, there was actually an animal control officer with a restraining device on the dog at the time. There’s video out if you want to see that case.

    SPQR (768505)

  108. Like I said, if it were my profession I’d wargame this out so I could come up with a workable solution.

    There is no training that can plan for every crazy thing that happens. Dealing with an armed robbery while someone tries to instigate a lawsuit by blasting his stereo while he has a rottie waiting to strike is among the infinite things that can happen to a police officer every day.

    Steve, for someone who boasts about his service in the chair force to such an extreme, day after day, I have to say sometimes that doesn’t come across in the way you intend. Especially when you denigrate the contributions of those who have a direct, in-the-line-of-danger role in defending us, such as the common police officer. You clearly do not understand what that is like. If you find it impossible to believe cops don’t want to shoot dogs, perhaps you need to sit at the kiddie table with Former Conservative.

    And of course the police department will review and discuss this with an eye for improving. Guns were used, which is never a routine matter for any American police department. And I suspect their attitude will no be that this is a war or a game.

    Dustin (303dca)

  109. @95 Steve Yes. I trained dogs before police work while going to college and I assisted the K-9 guys in training the dogs (as the biting dummy) here before I retired.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  110. I should have said that one thing that shouldn’t surprise you about a dog is that it’s going to stress when you chop off and remove the top of its hierarchy.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  111. There is a lot of stupid Monday morning quarterbacking going on in this thread.

    No, you don’t take an arrested suspect back to his own car. Period. That’s the kind of stupidity that gets cops killed.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:14 pm

    That’s how I should have said it. Thanks.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  112. Clearly none of you have military training: 360 rotational fire, full auto, would have eliminated the problem. The offending video could have then been scooped up in the aftermath clean-up from the twitching hand of the bystander-with-the-attitude who recorded the execution of the dog and created all this trouble.

    Proper responses to provocation such as this will lead to a docile & compliant citizenry with proper respect for uniformed authority.

    Werner Schwammberg (7192f5)

  113. Especially when you denigrate the contributions of those who have a direct, in-the-line-of-danger role in defending us, such as the common police officer. You clearly do not understand what that is like. If you find it impossible to believe cops don’t want to shoot dogs, perhaps you need to sit at the kiddie table with Former Conservative.

    Dustin, I’m not denigrating the police officer. I grew up around police officers. Which is why I’m surprised they couldn’t deal with the situation. It just wasn’t unpredictable. Owner. Handcuffs. Dog. Open Windows.

    I can’t imagine any of the cops I grew up around being surprised by what was obviously going to happen.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  114. Earlier you made comments about how bad it was that the Officers didn’t realize they were being video taped.

    Do you really think in the day and age that every Officer in the world doesn’t realize that just about every thing they do is being recorded, some of by dash cam? it seems that you will say anything to further your point of view, no matter how ridiculous.

    I didn’t say that. Once again, your unbelievable level of bias is making you see things that aren’t there.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  115. There is no training that can plan for every crazy thing that happens.

    Seriously, Dustin? It’s just plain crazy to imagine a dog in a car with all the windows down will jump out if you arrest his owner and force him into another car?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  116. There is no training that can plan for every crazy thing that happens.

    Seriously, Dustin? It’s just plain crazy to imagine a dog in a car with all the windows down will jump out if you arrest his owner and force him into another car?

    This.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  117. If George Zimmerman hadn’t been on neighborhood watch duty, the dog would still be alive. Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  118. Let’s assume the owner richly deserved his arrest, and I do;

    These officers had time and ability to deal with the dog and make themselves more secure from a situation that might make the dog a threat to themselves.

    I agree with Steve, they did not pay enough attention and had at least momentary tunnel vision.

    Have a plan, stan.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  119. Oh for Christ’s sake, stop hounding these officers…ohh sorry…

    Calfed (5b899d)

  120. @112 You’re finally correct, I apologize it wasn’t you.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  121. If George Zimmerman hadn’t been on neighborhood watch duty, the dog would still be alive. Or something.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:39 pm |

    LOL, but really: There are citizens who care about their neighborhood, and citizens who care about nothing, and citizens who have an axe to grind at the expense of their neighborhood.

    I would put that Zimmerman at one end of this continuum, and Rosby at the other end. Ultimately, it is Rosby who is responsible for what happened to that dog. He has been arrested a few times and knew he was going to be again, and did not restrain his dog. The police do not have the luxury of waiting for the committee of wargaming experts on the internet to give them instructions on the safe way to escort-by-threat thugs to their cars. I am sure had they had this expertise, that would have gone over wonderfully with the lawsuit happy dog abuser.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, once they had to arrest this nut, and guns were drawn, the time for taking chances was over.

    Dustin (303dca)

  122. @118, alright thanks, no worries about that then.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  123. These officers had time and ability to deal with the dog and make themselves more secure from a situation that might make the dog a threat to themselves.

    All they knew was that the dog was in the car. They probably noticed the dog was no longer out with the owner and thought that the risk had been reduced.

    Dustin (303dca)

  124. sarahw

    The dog was not a problem until the arrest was made. He calm and well mannered. The arrest was away from the car, the dog jumped out of the window. You just can’t plan for that until after you see the video and become an expert on what should have been done differently.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  125. @ Steve57

    Steve help me understand what you were suggesting at comment 75…

    Let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun. Escort the guy back to the car…–Steve57@ comment 75

    I never mentioned anything about unholstering a weapon–Steve57 @ comment 93

    So, Steve…when you say “let the guy know he can’t outdraw a drawn gun”.. If not the police, whose “drawn gun” would the suspect be trying to outdraw?

    Doesn’t a “drawn gun” imply an unholstered weapon?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  126. There are citizens who care about their neighborhood, and citizens who care about nothing, and citizens who have an axe to grind at the expense of their neighborhood.

    I would put that Zimmerman at one end of this continuum, and Rosby at the other end.

    No way. This guy wasn’t a sociopath. He was probably over-aggrieved about racial and police-mistreatment issues to his fellow man, although not without at least some reason, one suspects. In his own way, he demonstrated a caring for his community. It just isn’t a way you approve of.

    Wherever he is on that continuum, it is certainly not on the tail end of it.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  127. And what where the other variables? What do we know about this standoff with the robber and the possibility of more problems from that problem after the arrest?

    Those sitting at home ‘wargaming’ those who actually had to deal with this situation don’t actually know, but they act like they do. I would not like to see these people try to handle a dangerous and rapidly changing situation, but if they did, I would not be so quick to judge their best efforts by saying it’s impossible to believe they didn’t want to shoot a dog if they don’t follow my particular views.

    Dustin (303dca)

  128. That’s an attempt to dehumanize him, in essence.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  129. Dustin, you make an excellent point about how the police don’t have all day to make a decision in such a situation. Same with Zimmerman—a guy was on top of him pounding him MMA style, yet we have a few commenters who insist that he ought to have called a television time-out, enabling him to consult with ACLU lawyers about how to proceed.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  130. 119. …Unfortunately, in the real world, once they had to arrest this nut, and guns were drawn, the time for taking chances was over.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:46 pm

    Dustin, watch the video and tell me again when the guns were drawn. It wasn’t when they arrested this nut. The cops’ guns were holstered when they arrested this nut.

    The situation was so obvious the people who filmed the video were saying the dog was going to jump out of the care. Apparently the only people who didn’t know the dog was going to jump out of the car were the cops.

    No matter how anyone tries to spin this, that does not speak well for the cops.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  131. @124
    Can’t agree, I think it more likely he was taping in hopes of getting something to use in his own lawsuits against HPD. Every action he took was aimed at irritating and endangering Officers involved in a hot situation. How does that help anyone in any community?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  132. The dog was not a problem until the arrest was made. He calm and well mannered. The arrest was away from the car, the dog jumped out of the window. You just can’t plan for that until after you see the video and become an expert on what should have been done differently.

    Is this the epitome of law enforcement thinking?

    You can’t plan for a dog jumping out of an open window of a car as its owner is arrested and put in another car? You can’t plan that pushing someone’s leg to the side from behind as they stand their handcuffed might cause some minor reaction? That escalating and two people being aggressive to the owner might cause a reaction from the dog? That a bit of tousling or whatever could happen during an arrest?

    All of this is completely beyond the foresight of the average police officer these days (in the increasingly militarized police forces)?

    That’s a rhetorical question. As you and this video indicate, this appears to be so.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  133. Calfed @123, I’m saying I would have my hand on my weapon and that if the suspect did the slightest thing I didn’t tell him to do then the weapon would be out.

    I also want to ask again; if the people who made the video knew the dog was going to jump out of the car by the way it was behaving, how come it surprised the cops when the dog did the glaringly obvious?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  134. Steve @ #7:

    “The circumstances of this particular case don’t change the equation”

    Steve, I often find your comments persuasive because of the clear and sound thought behind them. However, I take issue with the statement above while I am respectful of of the context you provide by the following statement:

    “Where I come down on this issue has nothing to do with my attitude toward cops. It as to do with my attitude toward dogs. And really animals in general.”

    At this point I expect you to give me some points that support the position you just outlined, but then you belie that position by taking issue with cops rather than dogs – with the following:

    “I don’t blame the individual cop. But it strikes me as reflective of an us-them attitude on the part of police in general that they don’t come up with some other method of dealing with dogs other than shooting them”

    Well, my friend, if you do not blame the dog, then you should blame the individual cop in this particular equation. It is his implementation (or lack therof) of his police training that resulted in the dogs demise.

    I agree wholeheartedly that he should have chosen a different option – but was another option (say, pepper spray) available? Perhaps it was, and the individual officer had not the presence of mind to execute (no pun intended) it. If another option was not available to the officer, then it is not a so much an issue of poor training, is it? I suggest it may have been a problem of poor thinking.

    Again, I point out:

    “…they don’t come up with some other method of dealing with dogs other than shooting them.”

    But you weaken your case with:

    “The Austin PD has changed its training to include non-lethal methods for dealing with dogs. It’s about time. More PDs need to follow their example. I understand perfectly that sometimes a cop needs to shoot a dog.”

    Mt friend I intend you no malice. I attempt to demonstrate my good will by highlighting the part of your thought that I have come to appreciate as the hallmark of your mental discipline:

    “I don’t understand why they don’t commonly explore other options first.”

    In my mind, the two most thoughtful ideas you express are together, one after the other:

    “I understand perfectly that sometimes a cop needs to shoot a dog. I don’t understand why they don’t commonly explore other options first.”

    What is lacking in your comment are points that support both of these statements.

    felipe (6100bc)

  135. yet we have a few commenters who insist that he ought to have called a television time-out, enabling him to consult with ACLU lawyers about how to proceed.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:54 pm

    That’s the basic reason why I cut the officers some slack. It sickened me to see this poor dog get shot. I am a huge softy for dogs and frankly have adopted more than I should have. There have been dog shootings by cops that have enraged me because the cop was sloppy, for example raiding the wrong home. There was one recently in North Austin at a pet store where a pit repeatedly attacked a maltese… the officer should have ordered the pit owner to leave the store, but did not, and the pit kept attacking until it was shot dead by the cop (still a highly defensible shooting).

    In this case, it’s no less sad for the dog, but the officers were not imposing themselves on the dog or its owner. The owner was attempting to interfere with them. He was essentially trolling them to react. He had his dog out at first, likely because he knows that makes the situation much more difficult. Then he left the dog in a car, where only he knew it could and probably would jump out. He set this up, or at the very least, is totally responsible for how it unfolded. The cops simply reacted… some can say they should have known this was coming, but to me this was a rapidly changing and dangerous situation where the focus was probably on the armed robber (and we can’t know that this situation was truly over just because one perpetrator was arrested).

    It is so easy to say that the guy with the gun and the badge needs to be amazing and avoid any pitfall we can identify on video, but I don’t that works in the real world as things just unfold and unfold.

    Dustin (303dca)

  136. What Dustin wrote at #125… yes!

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  137. That’s quite a reach Steve. “the only people who didn’t know” Do you know how many were there? I heard the guy with the cameral and one other person talking about it, do you have some knowledge of others knowing what the dog was doing that you could share with us?

    The cops had a known trouble maker who was not known for his sterling character. The people videoing the incident appeared to be closer to the car and had no distractions. It appeared to me that the right side rear window was only half way down and the dog had to struggle to get out.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  138. The dog was not a problem until the arrest was made. He calm and well mannered.

    Seriously, as a 30-year law-enforcement veteran, your position is to rely on the continuing calmness and well-mannered behavior of a rottweiler as its owner is arrested a couple dozen feet away?

    That is your plan?

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  139. but was another option (say, pepper spray) available?

    What’s that going to do? They are arresting a large man and there is a large dog very close to many people. How is pepper spray going to help?

    I think perhaps a baton strike to the dog’s head would have worked, but the problem with that is that they needed their guns drawn due to the man they were arresting, and the dog entered the scene pretty quickly.

    Dustin (303dca)

  140. Steve57 @ 131

    Without belaboring this, will you admit that your reference to “outdrawing a drawn gun” implies not a “hand on the gun” but a gun that has already been withdrawn from its holster?

    But following through with your suggestion…so if you march the suspect back to his car and he does do the slightest thing that you didn’t tell him to do, and you do draw your weapon, what then?

    What if he draws a hidden weapon and gets off a shot? Suppose he hits a bystander? What if drives off? Do you shoot at him? What if you kill him? What if he kills or hits a bystander in an attempt to escape? What if he sics the dog on you? Do you shoot the dog then?

    It seems to me that you don’t care much if someone gets hurt, as long as it’s not the dog.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  141. Steve @#10

    Thank you, sir, this is what I am talking about! I do not read minds, so I can only guess that you realized after posting #7 what you had intended so say.

    I would not have made a “good” officer of the law. My chosen option would have been to flee to my squad car. Now THAT video would have gone viral!

    felipe (6100bc)

  142. If you watch this guy on the video, he’s an hysterical nutjob. If you try to march him around upon threat of killing him with your drawn gun, that will escalate the situation. Had they done that, some here would be condemning them for not simply handcuffing the man, an act that was intended to get him under control and reduce the risk for all parties involved.

    Do the police have the authority to march you around at gun point and roll up your windows? Why would that even be on their radar if they didn’t yet know the dog was going to be able to jump out of the car?

    Dustin (303dca)

  143. @Steve57

    I also want to ask again; if the people who made the video knew the dog was going to jump out of the car by the way it was behaving, how come it surprised the cops when the dog did the glaringly obvious?

    By the time that the videographer noticed that the dog was trying to get out of the car, it was too late for anyone to stop it.

    And as I said, up until the dog attacked the officers, it had not been aggressive. What happened surprised even the dog’s owner, so I guess it wasn’t that “glaringly obvious” that the dog would attack

    Calfed (5b899d)

  144. 135.That’s quite a reach Steve. “the only people who didn’t know” Do you know how many were there? I heard the guy with the cameral and one other person talking about it, do you have some knowledge of others knowing what the dog was doing that you could share with us?

    You left out the word “apparently.” As in that’s how it appeared to me. If you’re going to quote me, quote me accurately.

    The cops had a known trouble maker who was not known for his sterling character. The people videoing the incident appeared to be closer to the car and had no distractions. It appeared to me that the right side rear window was only half way down and the dog had to struggle to get out.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 4:04 pm

    In other words the people videoing the arrest didn’t lose their situational awareness. The police did. And yes the dog had to struggle to get out because as is common on a lot of cars the rear windows don’t go all the way down. But how could it possibly come as a surprise that it would struggle to get out? Or jump into one of the front seats where it wouldn’t have to struggle to get out? Nope. Those rear windows not being all the way down were supposed to be a real barrier to the dog getting out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU#at=20

    Shouldn’t the cops be smarter than a dog?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  145. @130 Yep, It’s sad state of affairs. Too bad you’re stuck behind the keyboard and unable to get out and show us how it should be done, each and every time.

    BTW I went to you tube to watch the video in a larger size. What you are calling a foot sweep can be seen on just about every arrest made. The officer is using his foot to move the suspects leg to the side while telling him to spread his legs. Quite often it has to be done two or three times. The purpose of this is get his balance spread out while conducting a pat down for weapons. The wider the leg spread, the less chance of a quick move by the suspect. I missed it on the smaller version of the video. This is another instance of you not knowing what, why or how, cops do their jobs and jumping to a bad conclusion.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  146. #16 Elissa

    I agree, Elissa, I did not watch the video precisely because I felt it was a “snuff” video: not interested in entering THAT into my mental log. But was that frame truth in advertising? If it was, then I am better off not watching it.

    felipe (6100bc)

  147. how come it surprised the cops when the dog did the glaringly obvious?

    Because it wasn’t obvious at all! It actually proves just how risky an idea it would have been to follow your wargame idea and march a man over to the car at gunpoint. There are a variety of outcomes that could have happened, all of them as bad or worse than what did. And in those circumstances, the same Monday morning quarterbacks would be condemning that choice and calling all consequences forseeable. There’s no way to win with some people, just as Patterico noted in the post.

    Dustin (303dca)

  148. But was that frame truth in advertising? If it was, then I am better off not watching it.

    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 7/5/2013

    You probably are better off not watching it. But there are a few points worth noting:

    1) the dog was initially out with the owner, and did not behave aggressively.

    2) the officers waited until the dog was no longer with the owner to arrest him

    3) no one saw the dog leaving the car, which it struggled to do, until it was far too late (and those saying otherwise are either delusional or dishonest)

    I disagree with those who say the cops didn’t include the dog in their equation. I think they were taking advantage of a moment where the dog was probably out of the equation, but it didn’t work out like they hoped it would.

    Dustin (303dca)

  149. “Only police training could cause someone to be so obviously clueless. How many cops were around and none could be spared to get the dog before he went out of control? I never would have let it get to that point, but then I don’t have the handicap of police training replacing common sense.”

    Wow, Steve. I find it unbecoming of you to express this much disdain, and in this petty manner. I do not begrudge your personal opinion, I simply mourn your temporary loss of class. Lord knows I have, in the past, posted petty words.

    felipe (6100bc)

  150. felipe, I’m still trying to come to grips with your critique. Which isn’t to say I don’t think there’s merit to it.

    You say:

    In my mind, the two most thoughtful ideas you express are together, one after the other:

    “I understand perfectly that sometimes a cop needs to shoot a dog. I don’t understand why they don’t commonly explore other options first.”

    What is lacking in your comment are points that support both of these statements.

    I think the first can be supported by the fact that sometimes there is no choice. You can be surprised at close quarters or overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Or the wind may be blowing back at you making pepper spray more of a threat to you than the animal(s).

    As far as the second goes I submit the comments by the law enforcement people as my evidence. If they’re trained to deal with dogs in any way other than shoot first it has yet to come up.

    Apparently if you get arrested with your dog in the car it’s a death sentence for the dog.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  151. The police showed up to deal with a particular situation, the robbery that created the original tasking. While there, another person sticks himself into their situation in some bizarre setup/trolling event.

    And Steve57, you are criticizing the police for not having sat down and drawn up a “plan” …

    When? ** face palm **

    SPQR (768505)

  152. The dog was clearly aggressive towards the officers; it’s not like the officers could reason with the dog. Some people claim they could have used non-lethal force, but in a situation like that you’d just react, you don’t have time to double think your actions like that.

    What, wait for the dog to bite an officer before taking action? What if the single bite was to the officer’s penis? Bet he would have wished he acted sooner then. Even if it bit his leg, now if you’re going to take a shot, the officer’s leg is in the line of fire.

    100% justifiable shooting here. Doesn’t matter if it makes people feel sad. Still justified.

    NaBr (344da2)

  153. Wow, Steve. I find it unbecoming of you to express this much disdain, and in this petty manner. I do not begrudge your personal opinion, I simply mourn your temporary loss of class. Lord knows I have, in the past, posted petty words.

    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 7/5/2013

    I think my comments were needlessly hostile and probably put Steve on the defensive. I was reacting to his comment “If the police aren’t willing to bother to do that then it’s impossible to believe they don’t want to shoot dogs.” Anyone who says that kind of thing about police is either chest puffing due to their own issues or has some negative history with law enforcement. Steve’s has repeatedly explained how he could do better, and I encourage Steve to get out there on the front lines of his wargame and do better. Anyone willing to do their best with their own skin in the game gets some deference from me unless they really screw things up (which these officers plainly didn’t).

    The problem, of course, is that if you do plan out what to do in this circumstance, Murphy’s law will ensure that you deal with a completely different and confounding circumstance.

    Dustin (303dca)

  154. No, no, no, this is not bash Steve57 day! I am not picking on you, Steve. Although you are quite the popular target ( and I have only read the comments up to #21) and I am sure there will be more down the thread.

    “When you get down to it it’s not a matter of how much equipment you can fit on a Sam Browne belt. Don’t these cops have something between their ears except bone?”

    Exactly my point in a previous comment – now you are thinking about it. Better late than never.

    “I’ve watched the video several times and even if I didn’t know the dog was destined to be shot I could see the sequence of events unfolding from a mile away.”

    Funny how watching a video several times will help you see events unfold from a mile away.

    felipe (6100bc)

  155. What a bunch of maroons, with Steve57 in the lead and Former Conservative (whose former names I’m suspecting to know) a close second. Hey, if you want to safeguard your dangerous property, keep it secured in your car while you obstruct the police when they’re arresting a felon. And that’s all the dog was, dangerous property. Strong jaws, powerful teeth, and a temperament that would cause it to attack anyone it perceived threatening its alpha male. Sheesh. Get real. Saying the cops should not have shot the dog, is like saying that if the “dawg” had thrown his Obamaphone at them the cops had a duty to catch it so it wouldn’t hit the ground and and break.

    nk (875f57)

  156. Apparently if you get arrested with your dog in the car it’s a death sentence for the dog.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013

    It very easily could be. An arrest is a forceful thing, and dogs are defensive of their owners. In the very best circumstances, the officer will be calling animal control, which will often euthanize the animal… though that won’t happen on camera so the Monday Morning Quarterbacks may be less concerned with that.

    So don’t get arrested while you have your dog unsecured. This is actually quite easy to accomplish. It’s all about personal responsibility.

    Dustin (303dca)

  157. 147.“Only police training could cause someone to be so obviously clueless. How many cops were around and none could be spared to get the dog before he went out of control? I never would have let it get to that point, but then I don’t have the handicap of police training replacing common sense.”

    Wow, Steve. I find it unbecoming of you to express this much disdain, and in this petty manner. I do not begrudge your personal opinion, I simply mourn your temporary loss of class. Lord knows I have, in the past, posted petty words.

    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 7/5/2013 @ 4:34 pm

    Sorry if you didn’t like my choice of words but frankly I expected better from the people in law enforcement than “if you don’t want your dogs shot then don’t get in our way.”

    This isn’t a new phenomenon.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/#.UddZTz0o5hg

    Police raid Md. mayor’s home, kill his dogs

    Couple appeared to be innocent victims of pot smuggling scheme

    …Police say the couple appeared to be innocent victims of a scheme by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.

    The two men under arrest include a FedEx deliveryman; investigators said the deliveryman would drop off a package outside a home, and the other man would come by a short time later and pick it up.

    A furious Calvo said Thursday that he and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, are asking the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the July 29 raid.

    “Trinity was an innocent victim and random victim,” Calvo said outside his two-story, red-brick house in this middle-class Washington suburb of about 3,000 people. “We were harmed by the very people who took an oath to protect us.”

    ‘Dogs were our children’
    Calvo insisted the couple’s two black Labradors were gentle creatures and said police apparently killed them “for sport,” gunning down one of them as it was running away.

    “Our dogs were our children,” said the 37-year-old Calvo. “They were the reason we bought this house because it had a big yard for them to run in.”

    The mayor, who was changing his clothes when police burst in, also complained that he was handcuffed in his boxer shorts for about two hours along with his mother-in-law, and said the officers didn’t believe him when he told them he was the mayor. No charges were brought against Calvo or his wife, who came home in the middle of the raid.

    Prince George’s County Police Chief Melvin High said Wednesday that Calvo and his family were “most likely … innocent victims,” but he would not rule out their involvement, and he defended the way the raid was conducted. He and other officials did not apologize for killing the dogs, saying the officers felt threatened.

    If cops don’t like shooting dogs then they could have come up with some way to avoid it. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.

    The fact that Calfed and Lbcatcher ridicule as complete idiocy the idea that they should have to figure out a way to avoid shooting dogs speaks volumes.

    But if I’m wrong then the law enforcement types can prove me wrong. I’d be happy to be wrong. But until they show an interest in even making the attempt, then why am I out of line for siding with the Mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD, and saying it sure looks to me that despite their protests the cops sometimes shoot dogs for sport?

    They are all so eager to defend it and so uninterested in ways to avoid it then how can I help but arriving at that conclusion.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  158. Funny how watching a video several times will help you see events unfold from a mile away.

    Comment by felipe (6100bc) — 7/5/2013 @ 4:45 pm

    @152 Felipe

    Yeah, THIS coming from a guy who has not watched the video at all!

    -See what I did there?

    felipe (6100bc)

  159. I watched the video from start to end. What isn’t known, is how this man’s actions “impeded” the arrest they obviously executed on the “Bank Robber” or whatever. He was 100% in his rights to record the police. At worst, he was in violation of noise ordinance laws–A misdemeanor. It would really be a stretch for a prosecutor to charge someone for something other than a misdemeanor on this.
    So the question is? Did the police act reasonably? I’ll just say, “We’ll see you in court!”. Dickweed acting like a dickweed doesn’t negate his rights. Cops acting like “Cops” do now doesn’t limit their stupidity. “We’ll beat down your door and shoot anything that resembles a threat!! BANG! BANG! BANG!… Oops wrong door….”

    Jamie (c47870)

  160. Well said, Jamie.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  161. @39 Tom

    I appreciate your comment, Tom. It shows respect and a willingness to dialogue in good faith. Not everything is right: not everything is wrong.

    felipe (6100bc)

  162. Way to go with the Calvos, a whole continent away, and 180 degree different situation, Steve. Nothing like cop-bashing for cop-bashing’s sake.

    nk (875f57)

  163. nk @153, if the cops said they’re going to shoot your dog whenever they feel like it I wouldn’t have as much of a problem as I do with them claiming to be animal lovers who really hate to shoot dogs. Who then proceed to shoot them whenever they feel like it.

    If their only plan to deal with dogs when they raid a house or arrest some guy walking or driving with his dog then obviously that’s their preferred option. If it weren’t then they’d come up with a way to deal with dogs that didn’t involve shooting them.

    In my first comment on this thread I said:

    I understand perfectly that sometimes a cop needs to shoot a dog. I don’t understand why they don’t commonly explore other options first.

    Based upon the reaction I’ve received my understanding now is the cops must like it.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  164. *…or arrest some guy walking or driving with his dog is to shoot it then obviously that’s their preferred option.*

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  165. one thing is for certain… you got yer dead dog in the middle of teh road…

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  166. Steve57, frankly you seem to be approaching this thread in a manner that reminds me of someone you’d not like me to compare you to.

    The police had to make a choice on how to handle this dog in this situation where it came out of the car.

    SPQR (768505)

  167. Steve57… have you been abused by MPs or police?

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  168. and the comments of many on this very thread are stinkin’ to high Heaven.

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  169. 160.Way to go with the Calvos, a whole continent away, and 180 degree different situation, Steve. Nothing like cop-bashing for cop-bashing’s sake.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:03 pm

    Cops. Suspect. Dogs. Not a whole he** of a lot different.

    I’m not cop bashing. Unless pointing out that I can’t take cops seriously when they say they don’t like shooting dogs when they clearly won’t entertain any alternatives is cop bashing.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  170. “when they say they don’t like shooting dogs when they clearly won’t entertain any alternatives”

    Now you are just making up stuff Steve57.

    SPQR (768505)

  171. Come to think of it… has anyone ever seen Steve57 and Dave Surls at the same place/same time?

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  172. I’m usually a lurker. On this one I can’t be. I watched the video. Most of the reasons given for the shooting the dog and against it are beside the point. WHY WAS THE GUY BEING ARRESTED?? For videotaping the cops? For having loud music? For what?

    He didn’t have any impact on arresting the person they were after. So, the police decided they were pissed because he wouldn’t turn down his music? Therefore they proceed to handcuff him (with him offering his wrists). And then they act like total a$$holes to him. He wasn’t resisting.

    And to the people who are saying–“would you allow him access to his windows, car, etc…” Seriously? What flipping law did he break? Did he rape the mayor’s daughter? No he pissed off a couple of uniformed assholes.

    Jamie (c47870)

  173. sorry, jamie… large and dangerous canine lunging at a police officer will get shot and for good reason. The responsibility of the sad end to this incident rests squarely with the criminally obstructive sh*theel dog owner.

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  174. I’m usually a lurker. On this one I can’t be. I watched the video. Most of the reasons given for the shooting the dog and against it are beside the point. WHY WAS THE GUY BEING ARRESTED?? For videotaping the cops? For having loud music? For what?

    Did you read the post or any of the linked articles?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  175. Well said, Jaimie.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  176. So, the police decided they were pissed because he wouldn’t turn down his music?

    No, they did not arrest him because they were “pissed” but because he was interfering with their work. He repeatedly refused to turn down the music. This made it difficult for them to try to apprehend a violent felon.

    And he has a history of this.

    Your anger is misdirected.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  177. Colonel Haiku, no. I’ve never been abused by the police or MPs.

    Well, except once The miscreants who were being adsepped from COMFLEACTS Yokosuka were assigned to the base police. And they’d give them various duties to kill time until they got the boot. One of them was assigned to the midwatch the night before I got married. I had submitted my list of guests to the CO of the base well in advance so those with invitations could be checked against the list and be allowed aboard. It was placed in the MAA’s log at the front gate.

    I roll by the gate shortly before the wedding to see if everything is copacetic and I see all my guests standing in a crowd outside the gate. It turned out the delinquent who was being separated because he didn’t like authority figures was unsupervised during the midwatch, saw an O was getting married the next day, and shredded it.

    I don’t recall exactly what I said but I remember the Marine in charge of the gate guard telling me not to worry, they’d get my guests onboard even without the list.

    After I got back from the honeymoon I called security because I was still po’d. And the chief initially tried to defend himself but gave up. Then he asked, “Sir, what could I do?” And that was as far as it went. There was nothing he could have done. He was stuck with these guys and it wasn’t his fault. I suggested in the future he should make a copy of the guest list, because mine wasn’t the last wedding to a local national that was going to take place in Yokosuka, and put the copy in the log book. Then I let it go.

    That’s it for the trauma the police have ever inflicted upon me.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  178. At worst, he was in violation of noise ordinance laws–A misdemeanor. It would really be a stretch for a prosecutor to charge someone for something other than a misdemeanor on this.

    Well, he was actually obstructing the police in the performance of their duties, but that is still a misdemeanor.

    But you can be arrested for a misdemeanor.

    So what, exactly, did police do wrong?

    Jamie, I doubt you would want to tell me where you work so I can come interfere with your duties by creating a noisy situation. You would probably be especially reluctant to do so if the noise I cause can create a possibly dangerous situation for you.

    But what is not OK when done to you is A-OK when done to cops, because, we hate cops.

    Right? That’s the sense I am getting from you. Where am I being unfair?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  179. Colonel Haiku-You missed the point. Why was he being arrested in the first place?

    I get shooting the dog. It was big and mean. Got it! Why was the guy being arrested that started this in the first place? “He was videotaping us!”–Legal; “He was playing loud music!”–Have they pulled up to any stinking stop light in the country? A misdemeanor at worst.

    Did they handcuff a citizen because they didn’t like being videotaped and were annoyed at having loud music played, arresting a citizen exercising his rights. Then when stuff didn’t go as planned, shooting the dog because they were assholes…?

    Jamie (c47870)

  180. Owners responsible for his dog. Why this is even being debated shows how far we are going down the wrong road…

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  181. Jamie, he was playing loud music in the middle of a police response to a robbery.

    Your comment seems to want to take his actions out of their context.

    SPQR (768505)

  182. threatened for doing your job….

    I caught the irony

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  183. 168. …Now you are just making up stuff Steve57.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:14 pm

    I’d like to hear it from the law enforcement types what their alternatives to shooting dogs are. Is that too much to ask?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  184. Patterico–I don’t hate cops. You may surprised at what I do 🙂

    I’m just saying, this could have been avoided so easily it’s stunning.

    Jamie (c47870)

  185. SPQR–So I turn up the stereo when the cops drive by? Now I have reason to be arrested?

    I’m just going off the video here. The dude/dudette was already in custody. Now it comes down to, “I’m PISSED!”.

    At least that is my take. I’ve been wrong before…

    Jamie (c47870)

  186. GD it… now my beloved bride has taken the opposing side in this and proclaimed that the “wuss cop” (her words) shouldn’t have shot the dog. I calmly reminded her that large, dangerous dogs are a menace and – unless restrained – pose a significant danger to those in close proximity.

    I also advised her that she shouldn’t throw stones since she has so far been unable to train her female Cairn Terrier to do much of anything on command… and furthermore, under the right scenario, an unrestrained Cairn might just have a cap busted on her fuzzy little ass.

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  187. what their alternatives to shooting dogs are

    A dog this large, and this close? They could strike it on the skull with the ASP baton, would should kill it but might only cause incredible suffering. Of course, shooting and wounding did much the same, which is terrible. But the ASP is better because there’s no risk of harming a bystander.

    With a bad guy that close to them, I don’t think that is realistic as they really need to keep their guns drawn.

    Using a Taser is unlikely to work as the dog will not be able to learn to comply and could die from the shock anyway.

    Jamie, as far as I can tell, the bad guy was aiding an armed robber by deliberately blasting music to make the officers’ job more dangerous. He easily could have gotten someone killed. It is amazing to me that you believe he should not have been arrested. No one is saying it was wrong to video this encounter.

    Dustin (303dca)

  188. So I turn up the stereo when the cops drive by? Now I have reason to be arrested?

    Good Lord, I hope so… you damn kids and your jukebox automobiles…

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  189. Jamie isn’t being honest. Rosby wasn’t driving by, and Jamie would know that if he watched the video.

    If Rosby hadn’t interfered with the police or if he’d have taken care of his dog properly, he wouldn’t have been arrested and his dog would still be alive.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  190. #187 summed this up quite well.

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  191. Colonel Haiku, large and potentially dangerous dogs are a menace. So I honestly don’t understand why if the cops were willing to wait until the guy walked back to the car to try and arrest him they didn’t order him to put up his windows.

    If that was an impossibility then they could have told the guy not to put the dog in the car but tie the critter to the chain link fence or something and then submit to arrest.

    Shooting the dog was so easily avoidable.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  192. Cairn Terrier

    lol, Col.

    You’ve got it better than me. We have a 76 pound Dalmatian that is half deaf (and easily surprised) and if I’m not around to bark at her, pretty thoroughly disobedient. Sweet dog, though. There are limits to the destruction your terrier can do.

    Your wife’s reaction, that the cops should have been tough enough to weather the attack without using force, is pretty common. I guess one needs to really try to put themselves in this scenario, and remember they do not know what’s coming next. The armchair quarterbacks take it for granted that the Rosby didn’t have a gun, that the armed robber’s friends didn’t drive up, that another bad guy didn’t show up, etc etc, but the officers were reacting to rapid changes with none of the safety or knowledge we have.

    Dustin (303dca)

  193. And Patterico and all–I’m not a cop hater or a screaming anarchist, libtard or anything else. I just don’t understand how the thug next to me can have his base booming all day long and nothing is done–until: Oh LORD have mercy!!! It’s interfering with me!!

    It’s either a violation or it’s not. I’m sick of double standards. I’m sick of “It depends…”. What good is the law if nobody (including lawyers) know what the f-ing law is anymore?

    Jamie (c47870)

  194. Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:50 pm

    I certainly believe cops did not quite think it through, and this lack of foresight forced their hand. They had time. A dog that might escape at be agitated is well worth considering, be ause, as you see, it forced them into using deadly force on a pet.

    Dustin, innocent people are arrested, or visited by officers prepared to use force , and there are many anecdotes of gratuitous shootings of dogs with uncertain justification, or worse, sadism. So I can’t quite agree being innocent is enough to stave off a pet killing,

    SarahW (b0e533)

  195. @#148 Steve

    This is the Steve57 I have come to respect; displaying intellectual honesty

    @151 Dustin

    Dustin your comments are shining today, my friend, even if they are tinged with a certain impatience – understandably so.

    felipe (6100bc)

  196. This all could have been prevented by the moronic, cop-baiting dog owner, SarahW.

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  197. Whatever tea your drinking Jamie – spit it out….

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  198. And Patterico and all–I’m not a cop hater or a screaming anarchist, libtard or anything else. I just don’t understand how the thug next to me can have his base booming all day long and nothing is done–until: Oh LORD have mercy!!! It’s interfering with me!!

    You’re seemingly trying very hard not to understand, even though many of us have patiently tried to explain it to you several times.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  199. ropelight–I’m not being honest? I asked why was he being arrested.

    You aren’t being honest. Who gives a crap if you are driving by or stalking police calls? Both are equally legal, Or do reporters with scanners get sentenced to prison now?

    And once again…. Why was he arrested?

    I find it profoundly stupid that people I normally agree with, I’m arguing with :-/

    Jamie (c47870)

  200. Dustin, innocent people are arrested, or visited by officers prepared to use force […] I can’t quite agree being innocent is enough to stave off a pet killing,

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:48 pm

    Sarah, you are quite right and I stand corrected to say that just be doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Too often someone who did absolutely nothing wrong did suffer from the police. If they are lucky, only their dog was shot. Indeed, that was a big fear of mine when I was outted and the nuts were SWATting my friends. I kept my dogs locked up at nights for months.

    there are many anecdotes of gratuitous shootings of dogs with uncertain justification, or worse, sadism.

    In a fair world, there would be millions of times as many anecdotes about officers helping a pet out of a tree, or other acts of gentle compassion. But yes, there are bad seeds. This is not an example of such.

    this lack of foresight forced their hand. They had time.

    There were a lot of other things they could have also planned for, I suppose, but the dog surprised them and I don’t think it was clear at all it was bound to escape and attack until it was too late. Even with that in mind, I’m not sure what the officers were to do. I guess they could have called animal control, but that would take hours and the dog could very well have been euthanized anyway (albeit humanely).

    Dustin (303dca)

  201. 194.This all could have been prevented by the moronic, cop-baiting dog owner, SarahW.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (558410) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:50 pm

    True.

    But failing that it could have also been prevented by the cops.

    They let the guy go back to his car, where I hear he could have had anything stashed. Yet they let him walk toward them with no obvious concern since their hands remained empty.

    The cops could have ordered him to roll up his windows. They could have cuffed him and had him talk to the dog while they themselves rolled up t windows. They could have told him to stop before he got to the car and had him tie his dog to the lamp post on the corner or something similar.

    Instead they decided to wait until absolutely no one and nothing constrained the dog and then arrest the guy.

    I’m still waiting to hear why this is good headwork.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  202. Jamie

    Never seen a reporter try to shout down the police in the middle of a bust.

    Or have a big ole dog

    Or have a long running beef with the police in court

    Or a reporter shouting that its racial discrimination to try and rid a minority neighborhood of a hoodlum because a black policeman did’nt respond to the call

    Just say’in

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  203. Jamie, plenty, if not all crimes have an “it depends” in there somewhere. It would be neat if they didn’t, but is that really possible?

    Playing music at a concert is different from blasting it while cops are trying to protect us from an armed robber and are asking you to stop (while you refuse because you wish to escalate the situation).

    Boxing in a ring is different from domestic violence. Eating a dog is Ok if you’re the president. It all depends, my man.

    Dustin (303dca)

  204. And once again…. Why was he arrested?

    Please re-read the post, the linked articles, and my comments (easy to find in yellow).

    If you really want to know the answer.

    But it seems like you don’t — since you keep asking a question many of us have answered, and you studiously and repeatedly ignore the central point we keep hammering home.

    That quickly gets frustrating — I, for one, start to wonder why I bothered to explain this to you, when 1) it was already explained in the post and 2) when I re-explain it you just ignore the points I made.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  205. Jamie wrote, ropelight–I’m not being honest? I asked why was he being arrested.

    As you’ve been told more than enough times, you’d know the answer to your question if you would take the time to watch the video.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  206. Patterico–I understand your argument. You aren’t understanding mine.

    The dude with the dog could be the devil incarnate. I don’t care. The fact is, the very thing that got him in cuffs are the very things that the average citizen does every day. The fact he did it on Purpose in front of the police? Why were the average citizen given a pass? Is the law only the law when it suits your purpose?

    And prove to me that it hindered the arrest of the person they were searching for. If he/he was arrested with no undue harm, it is a case of “he had his stereo an too loud….”

    Jamie (c47870)

  207. The fact is, the very thing that got him in cuffs are the very things that the average citizen does every day

    Jamie, it is not true that citizens attempt to escalate a confrontation with cops by blasting music as they try to apprehend a violent criminal.

    And prove to me that it hindered the arrest of the person they were searching for.

    Yeah, as you try to apprehend a violent criminal, it is more difficult if you cannot hear anything.

    If he/he was arrested with no undue harm, it is a case of “he had his stereo an too loud….”

    This is like saying if the cops search you without a warrant and don’t find anything, it’s a case of ‘he had nothing to hide, move along’

    Dustin (303dca)

  208. Jamie, really, the average citizen goes to the scene of a robbery police response and blasts music at high volume.

    You are just making stuff up too.

    SPQR (768505)

  209. #204 Jamie

    “Patterico–I understand your argument. You aren’t understanding mine.”

    Translation: I’m smarter than you!

    felipe (6100bc)

  210. Jamie, for the last time, even Rosby knew what he’d done to get himself arrested, and if you watched the video you’d know that.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  211. @ Steve57

    The fact that Calfed and Lbcatcher ridicule as complete idiocy the idea that they should have to figure out a way to avoid shooting dogs speaks volumes.

    That is not what I was ridiculing. I was ridiculing your facile suggestions as to how the officers should have marched the suspect back to his car and allowed him to enter it under the threat of being shot if he didn’t do exactly what they told him to do.

    And since were on the subject, I’m also ridiculing the notion that you have repeatedly pushed that Police Officer like to shoot dogs.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  212. Well then fine, Calfed. I want to be wrong here. I really do.

    School us on how badly police want to avoid shooting dogs by explaining what less than lethal methods you’re exploring for dealing with dogs.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  213. Now we understand why Barney couldn’t put his bullet in his gun until Andy told him he could.

    Gerald A (2c96c6)

  214. I’m not a police officer and haven’t the training so could somebody who has relevant training comment on the following proposed approach?

    “Sir, you’re going to be going to the police station. We’d like to not shoot your dog during this process so can we cooperate on securing the dog and keeping him alive and safe?”

    It doesn’t seem very complicated to me to give the dog owner a reasonable chance to save the dog, notify him of the consequences to the dog of screwing this up, and if the owner screws up, shoot the dog.

    TMLutas (0876a3)

  215. Did you count how many seconds of video there is between them arresting him and the dog exiting the car?

    SPQR (768505)

  216. But then the headline would be: Cop threatens to shoot dog!

    felipe (6100bc)

  217. TMLutas @212, that’s essentially the approach I was advocating when I recommended the “you can’t outdraw a drawn gun” course of action.

    Which was of course idiotic for me to recommend since an innocent bystander might have been hit.

    As opposed to letting a large dangerous dog run around freely which greatly increased the odds of an innocent bystander getting hit.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  218. 213.Did you count how many seconds of video there is between them arresting him and the dog exiting the car?

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:36 pm

    About enough time to fully discharge two aerosol cans of grizzly repellant.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  219. More relevant is to count the seconds from when the dog jumps out the car window till the cop shoots it.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  220. I’ll just drop the argument. I’ll just make sure I don’t carry a camera and play my (country) music in this jurisdiction. I mean, obviously, they had police barricades and all that to keep him out of the area he wasn’t in and all. I’m not saying the guy was without warts. I’m saying the police made a bad situation much worse.

    Jamie (c47870)

  221. Ten ounces of bear repellant dispenses in about 9 seconds. I counted at least 20 seconds between when the Rottie jumped out of the car until the first shot.

    That’s a lot of time.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  222. About enough time to fully discharge two aerosol cans of grizzly repellant.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013

    Gee, I wonder what the lawsuit happy jerk would have done if two cans of grizzly repellent had been used just a few feet from his face?

    Gee, I wonder if that would have been a reliable deterrent to the dog.

    Gee, I wonder if this could have made the situation much more dangerous for cops who would be breathing that in and had no prep time to warn the other cops and no idea what else was going to happen in a situation that actually started with an armed robbery.

    It’s OK because the war game QB approves this after reviewing a video and knowing full well what risks aren’t going to come up, but it’s not OK for anyone who is living this out in real time.

    Dustin (303dca)

  223. quick go find 2 cans of grizzly repellent, insert into “bat” utility belt…

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  224. 221.quick go find 2 cans of grizzly repellent, insert into “bat” utility belt…

    Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:52 pm

    Google “police equipment pepper spray.”

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  225. Hey! Batman has Shark repellent! So back off!

    felipe (6100bc)

  226. Things that make you go hummmm.

    It’s a strange string of events when you find Steve off his rocker and EPWJ making sense at the same time.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  227. No kidding, EPWJ. It must be nice to QB a video after the fact, solvable with some random tool that wasn’t actually on the scene ‘but should have been, and that they didn’t wargame this out proves they actually like to shoot dogs’.

    Sounds like someone realizes this dog was large and fast enough that you’d need more than just a little mace (which many cops do carry), but some extreme solution like two cans of grizzly spray (which of course would be deemed excessive force if they had miraculously had and deployed that). If the dog is as bad as Steve asserts, the shooting was obviously the best solution in the mere seconds the cops had to solve this problem.

    You can often tell who has no practical experience… it’s usually the guy who thinks he knows it all and can do everything better than the people who actually do everything.

    Dustin (303dca)

  228. Gee, I wonder what the lawsuit happy jerk would have done if two cans of grizzly repellent had been used just a few feet from his face?

    Gee, I wonder if that would have been a reliable deterrent to the dog.

    Dustin, how hard would it have been for one cop to say to another, “shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work?”

    Or for that matter to explain to a judge that lawsuit happy jerk was full of s*** since the use of non-lethal force proved they didn’t want to kill the dog?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  229. Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:46 pm

    It is the Rosby’s of the world, and their allies in the ACLU, that have forced otherwise caring, involved, citizens back into their shells because they have become deathly afraid of the civil consequences of “getting involved”.
    It is Kitty Genovese Reborn.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  230. 224.Things that make you go hummmm.

    It’s a strange string of events when you find Steve off his rocker and EPWJ making sense at the same time.

    Comment by ropelight (b978a4) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:00 pm

    It’s going to be a rare day in hell indeed when I can’t coordinate with 4 guys with guns and radios how to walk up on one guy with a dog.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  231. Dustin,

    or a coolio net gun,

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  232. ropelight

    new meds for me, they make my leg shake uncontrollably but other than that few side effects…

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  233. Google “police equipment pepper spray.”

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013

    Perhaps we should!

    Are Law Enforcement Defense Sprays significantly more potent than civilian products?
    There are significant differences in potency from one defense spray to the next. However, civilians have access to defense sprays with the same potency as carried by agencies using the strongest available formulations. Please keep in mind that many agencies carry defense sprays for quick takedown and quick decontamination.

    So basically, the pepper spray a cop has is usually pretty similar to the pepper spray in your wife’s purse.

    There’s a good reason the police do not have “grizzly spray”.

    I thought this was common sense, but if you only have six feet of reliable range, you cannot use a product that is so strong it is going to incapacitate YOU, the guy with a gun, or your fellow officers, the other guys with guns. That would lead to a disaster and is incredibly risky. Maybe it solves a problem that appeared in this video, but it leads to many more. This is a textbook example of why armchair quarterbacks should be treated with skepticism.

    It should be informative that even with hours to peck at these cops, by people so hostile to them they pretend they like to shoot dogs, they cannot come up with a solution that works as well as what the cops did in an instant.

    Dustin (303dca)

  234. or a coolio net gun,

    Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/5/2013

    I love it. The Enterprise could have beamed one down. It would make for a cool 1960s fight scene.

    Dustin (303dca)

  235. Forget the meds, get yourself a good Bloody Mary Mix.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  236. Dustin, how hard would it have been for one cop to say to another, “shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work?”

    You mean the cop with the grizzly spray in his face? I think he’s on the ground rolling around involuntarily crying and unable to hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo, let alone a dog.

    On the plus side, a little cayenne pepper will really make that dog really pop when it hits Obama’s plate!

    Dustin (303dca)

  237. I recall an incident in Orange Co. (Huntington Beach, I think) where a cop shot a woman who was advancing upon him with a knife. It was learned that training scenarios called for not letting such a person to close beyond approx nine-feet due to the possibility of not completely disabling them and their momentum would carry them to you with potential injury.
    I would not be surprised if the training manuals also call for the use of force upon dogs at such ranges also.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  238. Dustin, as I asked earlier, how hard would it be for one cop to say, “shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work.”

    A little division of labor and all the bases could have been covered.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  239. In Metal Gear Solid 3, I used a sniper rifle with tranquilizer darts to incapacitate dogs before the went hostile. Why didn’t the police have snipers on the rooftops around the city just in case this happened?

    Obviously because the LIKE to MURDER dogs!

    Dustin (303dca)

  240. @steve 57 You wrote:

    The fact that Calfed and Lbcatcher ridicule as complete idiocy the idea that they should have to figure out a way to avoid shooting dogs speaks volumes.

    Once again you wrote something that is completely false. I never said or implied that, and I seriously doubt that Calfed did. You might want to stick to what I actually say and do. You don’t seem to want to see that the Officers were a bit busy and dealing with a complete jerk who was being deliberately provocative. His dog got shot because he didn’t secure it when he put it in the car. He had the opportunity and it appeared that he knew he was going to be arrested. It seems he didn’t anticipate the dog getting involved. Surprise!

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  241. Dustin, as I asked earlier, how hard would it be for one cop to say, “shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work.”

    Yeah, they should have formed a committee. The world needs more committees. You seem to be ignoring that two cans of grizzly spray in the face of the cops is not going to make the situation any safer when they need to shoot a dog or a suspect or any other threat that they have no idea about (given they are not watching a video, but living this out).

    Dustin (303dca)

  242. Hey guys, give Steve a break, please. I agree with him that it is important for PDs everywhere to include dog/dog owners into their training and to equip our officers accordingly both materialy and strategically. in the future, maybe someone will be assigned to handle the “outside aggitator/dog” scenario. Certainly it is worth the time?

    Let me temper the preceeding with this true personal account:

    My (when she was still with us) elderly mother had fallen to the ground while letting the dogs (one very large) out to relieve themselves in the backyard. The dogs knowing (yes, I do read dog minds, thank you) something was wrong, went “ape” barking and barking until a heighbor called police to the scene. they had to “break in” to the backyard – now I don’t know if guns were drawn or not. My mom didn’t say, but she said the cops were scared to get near her so my mom shouted the dogs name and then the word “kennel”. The dogs went straight into their indoor cages and sat. Well, of course the dogs had been to obedience school! While my mom waited for an ambulance to arrive (the cops made the call) they praised her for how well-behaved the animals were. Moral of the story? It’s your responsibility to handle your pets, I guess.

    The score:
    cops with guns+protective dogs+ obediance school + owner in command of pets 1

    Cops+guns+protective dog+owner not in command of pet 0

    felipe (6100bc)

  243. Notes from a grizzly repellent can:

    Store in a clean dry place away from children

    To operate:

    Remain calm. Brandish can at offending large meat eating 2 ton carnivore

    If carnivore still keeps approaching, carefully remove child safety cap, a flat head screw driver may assist in this step

    Keep eye contact with carnivore

    If lid isn’t coming off, brandish can again at carnivore make growling sounds

    if lid should come off, spray directly at bear – please be downwind or the results could be slightly unpleasant

    If for some reason this product fails to meet you expectations, wipe off the remains and mail the can to us for a prompt refund

    enjoy

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  244. @Steve57

    Well then fine, Calfed. I want to be wrong here. I really do.

    School us on how badly police want to avoid shooting dogs by explaining what less than lethal methods you’re exploring for dealing with dogs.–Steve57

    Ahh, Steve, you have made a silly assertion and now want me to disprove it. I’m not going to be drawn into that discussion with you.

    I’ll just point out, again, a few things which you continue to gloss over…

    The dog had shown no aggressiveness before Rosby was arrested. Even Rosby was surprised by the way that his dog reacted.

    Before the officers approached Rosby to arrest him, he placed the dog in the car. Even Rosby apparently thought that his dog was secure.

    The officers, seeing that the dog was in the car may have erroneously concluded that the dog was secure.

    By the time the dog began trying to get out of the car, it was too late for anyone to stop it…his owner was handcuffed and no sane person would approach a strange and obviously agitated 130 lb Rottweiler.

    The officers did not shoot the dog immediately. They made several attempts to collar it before shooting it…and shooting only after the dog had aggressively snarled and snapped at the officers.

    You suggested that the officers uncuff Rosby and allow him to enter his car and roll up the windows…which would have, by necessity, also involved returning his keys to him…despite the obvious dangers to the officers and public should Rosby decide to resist or attempt escape. And despite the fact that by the time the officers knew that the dog was going to escape it was far too late for Rosby to attempt to roll up the windows of his car.

    Now, against this backdrop, you want me to prove to you that the officers don’t enjoy shooting dogs. Are you serious?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  245. Well Said, felipe.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  246. Hey guys, give Steve a break, please.

    I’m just giving him a hard time, in the spirit of a lively discussion.

    The dogs went straight into their indoor cages and sat. Well, of course the dogs had been to obedience school!

    That is freaking awesome. I love dogs that obey when you know they don’t want to, because their master really needs them to.

    Dustin (303dca)

  247. I’ve got a large two year old dog.
    It’s big, athletic and strong and very immature. They say dog years are 7 X 1 vs human years in early development.
    So my dog can be seen like a 14 year old football playing kid.
    The dog doesn’t know how athletic he is yet… hesitates on jumps, timing is off etc. Has no idea how fast he is.
    The dog is still socially immature. He darts in to strangers and sniffs, and then lunges back. He gets excited and jumps in the air (not on people… he doesn’t touch them). If he has been exercised (minimum 3 mile up hill run) he is immediately obedient.. if he is full of piss and vinegar his energy and hyperactivity is high and it takes a minute to get him to sit or lay down.

    Long story short, to my eye that dog was not “biting” he was running in and getting his nose and sense of smell… mouth open.. into the situation.
    Not a vicious move at all and anyone who uses the word vicious should probably go look it up.
    Vicious more properly applies to the cops actions, in the current “Protect and Serve” era where protect = officer safety and serve = cops vs everyone else. And if I need the cops to come, I’d rather not get those two, because they are not real calm and collected… someone has to finish last at the academy you know?

    If I was aware of Rosby and if I had prior contact with him, I’d tell him to handle it… it’s not like I don’t know where to find him, his history says he is not going to shoot me. So direct officers to back up a few steps down the block back towards where the real crime is, and then order handcuffed Rosby to walk over to the dog, get down on his knees and let the dog come to him. The dog will not be able to resist going to its owner and giving him a sniff. He can get the leash even handcuffed. Leave him sitting with the dog, go over and turn off the radio. and roll the windows up halfway. Open a back door and tell Rosby to put the dog in the car. It isn’t like Rosby is one of the burglars, he is a gadfly.

    I also know why the dog was shot (aside from dumbass owner not making sure the dog is secured… even though cops these days might shoot 40 shoots at you for holding the leash handle funny.. the Torrance fiascos doesn’t give me much confidence in cops emotional stability and their marksmanship)
    The dog was shot because two of the officers don’t know anything much about dogs beyond officer safety. Their cars should also carry the motto: We shoot pit bulls and other scary looking dogs.
    So it is what it is.
    Dumbass gadfly runs into scaredy cat cops and fails to remember that he (Rosby) has an obligation to the dog and its stage of development to secure it.
    The cops predictably overreact due to their inability to control their fear and resort to their training, which is: shoot the dog.
    Technically they did nothing wrong, followed protocols

    My guess is at least two other cops on the scene have owned dogs and are privately disgusted by their comrades, but they’ll publicly close ranks like they always do.

    Recently I got a chickenshit seat belt ticket with my dog in the front (only) seat in my truck. CHP approaches from passenger side and I get ready for my dog to get shot. I calmly start rubbing the dogs ears, make him lay down and talk to the CHP guy very clamly and with a friendly tone… I could give a *bleep* about the cop, I do not want my dog shot over a seatbelt ticket.
    As much as I hate to give the CHP guy an inch because he enforces dumb laws all day and then acts like they don’t have time to handle real crimes without more man power, but I have to say that he brought a dog biscuit along with his ticket book.
    So I get my paperwork out of the glove box and he sees my prescription meds I use for symptoms related to an autoimmune disease. Next thing I know I am doing the dry DUI dance on the entrance ramp and then doing the nystagmus test.
    He move his finger to the peripheral and I follow it there and reset forward. So we get in an argument over it. I tell him “hey I followed your finger like you said.. you didn’t say hold your eye out there and wait” He gets all huffy and panties in a twist over his control issues so we do it over.
    The dog stayed in the truck semi asleep and farting.
    So I give the CHP guy a 5 out of 10 review. Ass**** with a dog biscuit gets a 0 for being a tool, but a 10 for having the dog treat.

    SteveG (794291)

  248. less shipping and handling

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  249. Comment by E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:19 pm

    Alternate Scenario:

    As large carnivore approaches, remain calm while unholstering M29, M460, or M500 S&W.

    Take careful aim and squeeze off as many rounds as required.

    Call animal control/fish and game to ascertain whether you can keep the meat (if desired).

    askeptic (2bb434)

  250. shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work?? Holy crap, do you know that the miss ratio in police shootings is somewhere around 85% ?

    Askeptic: the knife training video you probably are talking about says 21 feet. It included a pretty good demonstration of a guy with a butterfly knife held at gunpoint suddenly attacking a student with an un holstered weapon from 21 feet. He got to the student pretty easily.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  251. isn’t the predominant color of a Rottweiler black?
    Racisty racist cops!

    Colonel Haiku (558410)

  252. Patterico–I understand your argument. You aren’t understanding mine.

    The dude with the dog could be the devil incarnate. I don’t care. The fact is, the very thing that got him in cuffs are the very things that the average citizen does every day. The fact he did it on Purpose in front of the police? Why were the average citizen given a pass? Is the law only the law when it suits your purpose?

    And prove to me that it hindered the arrest of the person they were searching for. If he/he was arrested with no undue harm, it is a case of “he had his stereo an too loud….”

    Jamie,

    There is this thing called context. I may blast music inside my house because it is not disturbing anyone. Someone’s right to blast music on the street is dependent on volume and surroundings. Someone’s right to blast music on a street right across from a holed-up felon, when police have asked said music-lover to turn it down because they can’t hear each other, is non-existent.

    “prove to me…” I do not try to prove things to people who badly do not want me to. The People thank, and ask the court to excuse, Jamie. On to the next juror.

    For those who can be persuaded, Penal Code section 148 applies to one who “willfully resists, delays, or obstructs” an officer in the performance of his duty. Blasting music so officers cannot easily communicate easily fits that definition for any reasonable person.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  253. Dustin @234, I’d be cool with the fact the cops didn’t use pepper spray because they’d debilitate themselves.

    As a matter of fact if you poke through my comments I’ve said that’s why I wouldn’t necessarily use pepper spray on a griz even when I’m hunting in griz territory. I’d have it on me, and if time permitted I’d use it. But my rifle is what I have close at hand.

    Spraying a cloud of debilitating spray into your own face sort of defeats the entire concept of self defense. I at least could explain to the Alaska state troopers why I used my rifle instead of the spray. And they’d probably believe me because skinning a bear and hauling the hide and skull to them is a lot of work and I’d really rather just spray the damned bear and hope it goes away.

    Do you have any idea how much a wet bear skin weighs? I’m on the verge of a coronary just imagining packing it out.

    As far as the Rottie in the Hawthorne video, dogs do what dogs do. People have lived with dogs for untold millennia. I find it fascinating to hear from various police enablers that dogs are a complete mystery to them.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  254. Finkelman has nothing on teh Admiral!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  255. Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:25 pm

    I stand corrected.
    This woman was a bit of a schizoid as I remember it, and had (of course) a history of drug abuse.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  256. OK OK, I admit it. The cops obviously like to shoot dogs. That’s why they didn’t bring their nets, proton packs, and grizzly spray. After a long day of eating donuts, nothing takes the edge off like sadistically murdering beagles.

    Dustin (303dca)

  257. As far as the Rottie in the Hawthorne video, dogs do what dogs do. People have lived with dogs for untold millennia. I find it fascinating to hear from various police enablers that dogs are a complete mystery to them.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:32 pm

    You know, in the past I have read some of your lengthy comments on various subjects with some admiration and wondered how you came by so much info on so many subjects. With that last comment, and the one before it claiming that Calfed and I said something that we absolutely didn’t say, I think the mystery is solved. You make up facts and comments to suit your arguments.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  258. Dam it Dustin @253 That stuff was supposed to be kept a secret. And don’t forget Chihuahuas

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  259. askeptic, not a correction more of an FYI. It amazed me when I first saw it.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  260. lbcatcher – Chihuahuas named Hercules of course!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  261. Dustin – Los Angeles obviously needs a publicity hungry dog loving Mayor like Cory Booker.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  262. I heard Michael Vick might be available for the job…just a thought

    Calfed (5b899d)

  263. @#241 & 253

    I don’t care who you are, that, there, was FUNNY! I needed a good laugh after all this bickering.

    felipe (6100bc)

  264. Ya know that if all dogs go to heaven Michael Vick’s options are getting a bit thin.

    ropelight (b978a4)

  265. Patterico and others. I just watched the video again (for the–idunno–umpteenth time) trying to find the interference. I agree context is key. I just don’t see it.

    If it were prior to the police apprehending the suspect, the music could be a problem. The arresting officers acted in the video more as “how dare you..!” in my opinion. Then again, opinions are like a$$holes. We all have them and they all smell.

    Like I said before, I don’t care how idiotic the dude may (or may not) have behaved, I still don’t see cuffs being appropriate from the video.

    Perhaps you have video that isn’t shown? Or news reports that aren’t relevant to this (I know–Past behavior is highly indicative of present/future behavior).

    I just don’t see it here. Is he being an ass? Yes! Is being an ass illegal? I hope not! Is he hindering the investigation etc….? I just don’t see it.

    Jamie (c47870)

  266. what we know for sure is that on none of these piggy pig’s tombstones is it gonna say “he was kind to animals”

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  267. Bah! S/B “are relevant to this”. IMO his having lawsuits against them can be a plus or a minus…

    Jamie (c47870)

  268. 254.As far as the Rottie in the Hawthorne video, dogs do what dogs do. People have lived with dogs for untold millennia. I find it fascinating to hear from various police enablers that dogs are a complete mystery to them.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:32 pm

    You know, in the past I have read some of your lengthy comments on various subjects with some admiration and wondered how you came by so much info on so many subjects. With that last comment, and the one before it claiming that Calfed and I said something that we absolutely didn’t say, I think the mystery is solved. You make up facts and comments to suit your arguments.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:39 pm

    Have things your way. I’ve presented my datapoints and I’ve asked for those with contrary views to present theirs.

    Instead I get:

    Ahh, Steve, you have made a silly assertion and now want me to disprove it. I’m not going to be drawn into that discussion with you.

    I’ll just point out, again, a few things which you continue to gloss over…

    The dog had shown no aggressiveness before Rosby was arrested. Even Rosby was surprised by the way that his dog reacted.

    Before the officers approached Rosby to arrest him, he placed the dog in the car. Even Rosby apparently thought that his dog was secure…

    That a supposedly sane human being can imagine that a dog that has shown no aggressiveness before seeing its owner handcuffed (not necessarily understanding the significance) and stuffed into another vehicle (definitely comprehending that on some level) will show none afterwards has heretofore escaped my comprehension.

    That a person deemed competent to testify at a trial of another citizen could claim a dog in a windowless car was somehow secure also amazes me. Because as he asserts the suspect clearly thought the dog was secure, so that somehow should have convinced the cops of the same.

    Beyond bizarre.

    Yet here I am confronted with these ridiculous assertions. Moreover, if I understand Calfed, the fact I find these assertions ridiculous makes me unworthy of an answer.

    I’ve glossed over nothing. Deal with it.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  269. Until we can construct robots with perfect judgment in every situation, no matter how heated, I will give the cops the benefit of the doubt here.

    -Patricia

    “Cops aren’t perfect, but I’m willing to pretend that they are always right so I can feel safe and free.”

    Keep grazing, sheep. Keep grazing.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  270. This whole thing is disgusting. The dogs are just target practice. They can’t wait to get the orders to contain the mundanes. Cops don’t protect and serve, they patrol and enforce.

    Who here looks into their rear view mirror and thinks, “thank God the police are behind me, now I’m safe”? Anyone?

    Ghost (2d8874)

  271. I don’t know why the police didn’t order up a military jet flyover of the scene. Most dogs are afraid of loud noises and a sonic boom or two could have made the dog just cower in the car.

    Those bloodthirsty policemen were obviously not thinking straight.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  272. “Cops aren’t perfect, but I’m willing to pretend that they are always right so I can feel safe and free.”

    Hmmm, let me see.

    “Republicans aren’t perfect, but I’m willing to pretend that they are always right so I can feel safe and free.”

    Or maybe:

    “Democrats aren’t perfect, but I’m willing to pretend that they are always right so I can feel safe and free.”

    I don’t know, which seems more accurate?

    Anyway:

    Keep grazing, sheep. Keep grazing. Said the wolf in sheeps clothing.

    felipe (6100bc)

  273. Shoot the dog first, think later.

    They sure didn’t think first. They didn’t even think second. Along about fifth or sixth, they notice the dog, and then, having discarded most of the good options by not noticing and not thinking, they shoot the dog.

    Must be kind of like eating a live toad first thing in the morning, nothing else really bad is going to happen in that day. Well, shooting a dog three times and letting it die in pain. That would be worse. Did they call animal control after they shot the dog? After it died? Just left it there on the boulevard and drove away?

    htom (412a17)

  274. 239.

    Dustin, as I asked earlier, how hard would it be for one cop to say, “shoot the dog if the spray doesn’t work.”

    Yeah, they should have formed a committee…

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:19 pm

    They did form a committee, Dustin. Watch the video.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  275. How many times should Patterico explain to Jamie why the jackwagon was arrested?

    JD (e70b27)

  276. Ghost, I do feel safe in the presence of police. I know that when I have my car insurance up to date, the police are my friends. But, strangely, when I foget to have my car insurance current, or have forgotton to get my inspection sticker renewed. The po po are my enemies. So I drive fearfully, seeing squadcars everywhere. But, just after I get these things taken care of, the cops vanish, like magic. Go figure.

    felipe (6100bc)

  277. Wait a minute. The cops had Tasers. This dog didn’t need to die that day.

    htom (412a17)

  278. addicted to hyperviolence is my guess

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  279. There was probably a coil of rope in the trunk of one of those police squad cars. I don’t understand why one of the officers didn’t just grab it, make a noose and nonlethally lasso that rottweiler, unless they had already decided to kill a dog that day.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  280. JD–Got it. Out! Don’t want to be viewed as troll.
    I will leave this last comment JD. When they come for you…? I wasn’t worried because I wasn’t….

    Jamie (c47870)

  281. daley, the Rottie was already lassoed.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  282. The suspect can be seen parading around with the end of the lasso in his hand for most of the video.

    Until the cops make him walk toward them after dropping his end of the lasso and leaving the dog unsecured in a windowless car.

    What happened after that is a surprise I don’t know why.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  283. steve @265
    Have things your way. I’ve presented my datapoints and I’ve asked for those with contrary views to present theirs.

    Sorry Steve opinions are not data points

    That a supposedly sane human being can imagine that a dog that has shown no aggressiveness before seeing its owner handcuffed (not necessarily understanding the significance) and stuffed into another vehicle (definitely comprehending that on some level) will show none afterwards has heretofore escaped my comprehension.

    First off the owner was not stuffed into another car, if fact he was standing there being searched.

    Secondly, I have made any number of arrests with dogs present and have never seen one get aggressive. I have seen them cower, cry, ignore us and more often than not stay exactly the way they were before the arrest. You just never know and unless the owner gets agitated the dogs usually stay calm.

    That a person deemed competent to testify at a trial of another citizen could claim a dog in a windowless car was somehow secure also amazes me. Because as he asserts the suspect clearly thought the dog was secure, so that somehow should have convinced the cops of the same.

    Didn’t you agree that the window was only halfway down, how did the car become windowless? Nobody said that the suspect “clearly” thought the dog was secure, you are once again paraphrasing to suit your case (he said apparently). The dog being in the car, the owner appearing not to be worried about the dog were definitely
    things to consider in assessing the situation.
    Yet here I am confronted with these ridiculous assertions.

    Moreover, if I understand Calfed, the fact I find these assertions ridiculous makes me unworthy of an answer.

    I’ve glossed over nothing. Deal with it.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 8:10 pm

    No you misunderstood Calfed, he thought that you were silly to want him to make a plan to eliminate dog shootings which is what made you unworthy of an answer.
    I don’t completely agree with him on that, I think the thing that makes you unworthy is the way you make stuff up or paraphrase to suit your argument.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  284. Daley@276

    The decision to kill is usually made at roll call.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  285. Going to bed, goodnight all.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  286. good night Mr. poundcatcher

    another day gone and no dead puppy dogs to my name

    will i ever be a real boy?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  287. Lbcatcher, two points.

    First I don’t agree the right side, or passenger’s side, window is only half way down.

    I see the driver’s side or left side window is partially up. But then as I’ve said that’s consistent with how modern cars work. The rear windows rarely go all the way down.

    The first shot of the car is visible at about the 30 second point. At what point do you see the opposite side window glass? I never see it, and I’ve watched the video several times.

    Second, I’ve never demanded anyone come up with a plan to eliminate dog shootings. I think it’s a good idea to come up with a plan to cut down on them, but I don’t think it’s possible to eliminate them entirely.

    Apparently no is working toward the goal of reducing the number of dog shootings. Or if they are I’m unworthy of hearing about it.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  288. They did form a committee, Dustin. Watch the video.

    Comment by Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/5/2013 @ 8:29 pm

    Another odd characterization of what happened in the seconds where the saw this dog attacking. They struggled to control the dog without harming it and then shot it. Your solutions, such as grizzly spray and marching the dude at gunpoint due to clairvoyance, would have made the situation much worse, and I don’t take them any more seriously than your ever changing-to-suit you characterizations of the event of the comments of those who disagree with you.

    I won’t attribute that to a lack of integrity, but I think you are too committed to ‘winning’ the discussion to understand what we’re trying to say.

    Dustin (6c615c)

  289. This story will never end…

    http://youtu.be/He82NBjJqf8

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  290. The problem with police departments is that they always have a phony excuse as to why they had to do the wrong thing. Killing this very friendly Rotweiller was the wrong thing. 39 years breeding pet dogs. I could have repelled this dog as a stranger with my voice. “No” “Get out of here” and a lot of my body language if necessary. The cops involved are guilty of many mistakes and their boss Lt. Swain tries day after day another angle to justify the unjust killing. The first two arresting officers had their minds somewhere besides their arresting incident. If they are arresting a dog owner with a dog and ask it to be secured they should see the car ten feet away with the windows down in back. Again if I was there I’d think if I arrest the dogs master with the window down the dog might come out the window. I’d also be thinking protocol that once the dog owner is arrested and removed who takes control of the 130 pound dog?????? Can I use the words “duh here”… The two cops look like that as they handcuff the victim. They are supposed to be thinking they will be in charge of the arrestees property-car and dog and have to secure both…They did not… They have to call a dog unit to pick up the dog…don’t think they really cared much about anything except the getting the guy bugging them with a camera in handcuffs-kick him in the legs a bit and haul him away to show what happens when you aren’t breaking any laws but putting them on guard! They were involved in that emotion rather than protocol. They didn’t kill the dog and might never have. The third cop is the guilty party. Apparently he has been involved in some other ugly treatment of people-including violating their rights, beating them, invading their home illegally and being sued. Therein we have a dog killer who likely should have been relieved of his gun after the previous violations-but as we all observe cops who do wrong don’t get reprimanded often. This third cop clearly out of the picture immediately drew his gun (the way he thinks of solving a problem)and rushes the dog….the cause of the dogs death. He has three tries without the dog biting him to grab its collar at the neck. Big mistake. While in full view is a leash attached and dragging the ground with a handle on it. The correct place to “try” controlling the dog. Which likely would transmit to the dog as control and response. Could have easily wrapped it around the street corner pole and had the dog tied. Then all sorts of good conclusions could have occurred. Let the arrestee replace it in car with windows up-necessary while the dog waits for dog cathcer pick up…Simple stuff but all three cops were not thinking much about anything except the mental frame of mind they must take when arresting and punishing an innocent bystander filming them….their in lies the cause! Lt. Swain clearly is in charge of trying every possible line of excuse thought up until he gets one that works on the public. Quite clear of his mentality. His job is bs the public with whatever it takes to reduce responsibility of the police. The bottom line is the Police Chief should be held responsible for his officers actions, for failure to properly reduce the shooting officers ability to harm the public after the beating lawsuit incident, and for the first two arresting officers failures to properly arrest and secure a scene where the arrestee has a large dog, and for allowing his officers to arrest a person for no crime-proven when the arrestee was released the next morning at 5 am with no charges…What the public needs in all police department commands are leaders who actually think like citizens and not like military authorities and commanders over their troops,and at the lowest level the wellbeing of the public, and who actually go to the very harder effort to keep a police squad honest and forthright at all levels. There seems to be a mentality in all police departments that morale would be destroyed if an officer is punished for major mistakes made. In fact, that due punishment is what would clean up a force and all would be mindful of their training and not their personal emotion which is “let loose” after there is no just punishment for major violations. After all the entire police force is about charging the public with some form of punishment when it commits even a minor violation. The police department in Hawthorne has done more damage than it intelligently could understand with the unjust shooting of this dog-Max-regarding public relations. AS the public has experienced all we expect after this incident is a line of bull from the police department – no action – and a final statement – that the officers were in imminent danger. Which is true if their IQ is much lower than the public expects should be a minimum requirement for any policeman given a gun and license to kill in certain circumstance. Because the killing officer was so agressive I have to say again-he was wrong. Several million people say he was wrong. They didn’t secure the big dog up front, they didn’t even care, they just were gloating in arresting the agitant filmer, and then the shooter wasted no time “on camera” proving to millions he should not have a license to carry for protection of the public good. The 10 feet of leash was right in front of his eyes-the pole to tie it off right there. And as someone else said-one shot was plenty at worst-this was not an Kodiak Bear on hind legs with bear cubs. The shooter did do the worst thing he could he got between the dog and its master. He reaches for the collar three times when he could have walked left a couple feet calmly picked up the leash and tied it to the pole quickly. Or the car bumber-car door with window open…but he is not intesting in thinking-he wasn’t thinking when he did the acts on people that lead to a lawsuit. This is a person with a short fuse-ask the psychiatrist for an expert opinion if you must. This guy is a rambo , a loose cannon that went off again, and he really doesn’t know how wrong his actions were-at the time-maybe now. For the person above who claimed there is no room on the police belt for reduced dog controls–he flat out list the baton-but ignores it as a method of control-thats what should have been drawn in hand while calmly reaching down the line for the dogs leash-dragging behind him. Its broad daylight, the arrestee was cooperating-the arrestee is clearly having his legs kicked when Max first hesitant to leave the car-does jump out. 39 years of many dogs and every personality and the video told me Max rushed to the master aid but only barked. He would have latched right onto someones foot or leg if he was an agressive dog. Clearly the owner had socialized it enough that it was not a biting dog. Snapping when a stranger is trying to grab its collar while its master is being dragged away is a normal response/warning -it does not know to trust this stranger-period. Enough said. The public is dreadfully tired of government agencies making serious mistakes and then using the common excuse-we are going to investigate and fix the problem, when such problems went ignored, until a situation like this causes outrage by the millions. The police that don’t know this fact-some people actually love dogs more than people simply because they find certain dogs never reject the love and attention focused on them as can happen from human to human..for some dogs supply more happy experiences than fellow man..If I were given choice to be judge and jury – I would lay no great punishment on the two arresting officers-but I would dock their pay for a significant amount that they pay attention at all times what is their duty. Arrest a person with a dog-secure the dog first-if its a peaceful event in the beginning. They failed that test-the car the dogs is told to be placed in becomes the restraining compound they have to utilize after they arrest the dog handler/owner-until such time as they call in a dog/pound/rescue person. The are going to be calling a tow truck also and impound the arrestees vehicle so its obvious the dog has to be taken care of after arrest-they flat ignored their responsibility. Missing a paycheck might make them think about doing the protocol as trained rather than go off on an ego trip. If they were thinking protocol all secured- that would have been accomplished. You could say they way they were trained they never secure a dog and go ahead and arrest a peaceful person and then whatever comes with the dog-if its not cooperative-kill the damn thing as a nuisance. There millions of us no this is a crime scene and the cops are guilty of the death of a pretty healthy pretty friendly dog. As for the policeman who agressively killed Max-with his past history known-he should fired and never hired again by another police-force or similar professional job where he is supposed to be protecting the public and not attacking it or its property. I know dogs well-so do others-Max by all indications was a very well behaved “large dog” who deserved much more. I think we have to forgive its owner for failing to be sure the windows were rolled up enough so Max couldn’t jump out because he was probably very much under stress knowing he was about to be handcuffed and arrested. He would be in some sort of fear of the coming incident-we all would under those circumstances-going to jail for filming what millions now know need to be filmed as much as possible because obviously police are “not operating responsibly or legally”. Police forces are acting as a force compartmentalized from the public it is supposed to be protecting. Obviously their Police Chiefs should be held accountable. He or she spells out the mandates that patrolman have to follow or maybe thats the problem that caused this is that there aren’t real mandates coming from the top for the best benefit of the public. Sorry Max-you sure looked healthy in the profile picture. I would have devoted all my attention to your welfare and seeing the windows secure and you inside-and relayed demands for your safety to the cops as they handcuffed me. However I have stopped traveling with my dogs (done for the first 30 years) because the entire government nationwide is involved in disrupting activities we the people used to enjoy without much interruption. traveling with a dog today is almost a target for the government-as it is training little old ladies to call them any time they see a dog alone in a car, for what may be in reality just a few minutes but now 7 out of 10 times the citizen ends up defending the fact he has tirelessly cared for this dog or generations of this dog for decades and is faced continuously with some old biddy with nothing better to do but see a dog in a car and assume its mistreated-call the government and here comes the swat team and you are a dog mistreater, beater, until proven innocent. In the 1970’s and 80’s I was treating the companion dog in my car just like today and back then never had any governmental problems-but today lets face facts-the government is well along on crowding our life with less and less free space to enjoy life. The filming of Max death reveals to millions just how cruel and compartmentalized/alienated from the best quality of their neighbors lives and freedom. (yes there are bad criminals out there)-Max and its owner in broad daylight did not deserve that category and we the people watching the video our outraged and demand justice from the chief of police and the mayor and not the PR man LT Swain. I say it is compartmentalized emotional aggression upon other’s that may have been the culprit therein the Hawthorne incident. What Max death should be valued for is that we the people need to address the fact that the government is out of control-has become disconnected from us as a neighbor and friend (not all policeman of course)and seeing Max die like that amplifies the facts and we should demand a change in that department and those across the nation. There is apparently a disconnect from top down command rather than the citizen/neighbor up. Its important to do the best to talk to police when they aren’t busy-and be a friend as its clear that they have become isolated from friend and neighbor and rely upon their group as there friend and neighbor. But to the dog killer-sir you have a problem that your superiors need to address at this late date. No doubt to shoot and kill a dog like that , we dog lovers know you have no feeling or respect for a pet-a friend-a family member. Anyone that did would have looked long and hard for the correct rememdy that day-and it was not get between the mother bear and its cubs and try and become its new master. Usually men with guns now about the rules of navigation around animals with lesser abilities to act out a circumstance. You’d be fired sir ! Sorry! About 4 million souls agree.

    James Joyce (6bf508)

  291. Holy Sermon on Teh Mound…

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  292. I think the cops illegally profiled the dog.

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  293. Someone just published their undergraduate thesis – as far as their resume is concerned, anyway.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  294. Ima read it.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  295. Well, I think we know where James Joyce stands on the issue.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  296. seafaring mariner

    atm machine

    major nuclear disaster

    racist cop

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  297. That is the biggest paragraph evah!

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  298. No. Never mind.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  299. Some of the same folks who are very insistent on George Zimmerman’s right to self-defense seem rather unsympathetic to the rights of a policeman dealing with an unmistakable, extremely well documented threat.

    I am a dog lover. I agree with our host in blaming the dog’s owner — and no one else. The dog did what dogs are supposed to do, and so did the police. It’s the owner who misjudged the situation and is entirely responsible for the dog’s death.

    Beldar (4d6fc4)

  300. No, Dustin. Watch the video. Did the cops not confer at the center of the block before they turned to and arrested the guy?

    I don’t see where I’ve changed my position on anything. I’ve offered up various possible alternatives to shooting the dog, but it doesn’t change the fact I believe the cops could have found some other way to arrest this guy and not shoot the dog. At the very least if I was the Hawthorne PD chief I’d like to be able to stand up and say:

    We know people have dogs. We have dogs ourselves and like dogs. Sometimes we arrest people who have dogs. We’ve looked into ways to arrest people who have dogs without hurting the dogs but we haven’t been able to work that out.

    Thank you for not attributing anything to a lack of integrity but in reality there’s no need to psychoanalyze me. I’ll tell you up front I really like my dogs. That’s all there is to it.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  301. and a single dog biscuit was placed on teh empty chair at the Friday Night Dog’s Poker Game…

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  302. Im with Steve on this one. If you read the blog The Truth about Guns they have reported a lot of instances of dog shooting. The most egregious was the cop who shot a dog who was chained up behind a fence in its own yard. The reason he shot it was that he wanted to gain access to the yard so that he could the house NEXT DOOR!
    With the increasing militarization of our police depts I am seeing more young men who really should not be cops entering the force. The only thing they protect and serve is their pensions.

    Gazzer (b6a937)

  303. Why didn’t the police pour motor oil on the street between the sidewalk and where they were holding the dog’s owner. That way the rottweiler could not have gained purchase and attacked the arresting officers. This is yet another of the potentially endless examples I can show leading to premeditated dog murder on the part of the officers with the benefit of 100% hindsight and not having to react to the situation in real time. Facts are irrelevant with hindsight and hypotheticals.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  304. a case of involuntary dogslaughter?

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  305. Canicide?

    Colonel Haiku (2d0cb6)

  306. 296.Some of the same folks who are very insistent on George Zimmerman’s right to self-defense seem rather unsympathetic to the rights of a policeman dealing with an unmistakable, extremely well documented threat.

    I am a dog lover. I agree with our host in blaming the dog’s owner — and no one else. The dog did what dogs are supposed to do, and so did the police. It’s the owner who misjudged the situation and is entirely responsible for the dog’s death.

    Comment by Beldar (4d6fc4) — 7/5/2013 @ 9:42 pm

    I think this is where we part ways. Obviously the cops arrest some real a**maggots. Sometimes the a**maggots own dogs. Sometimes the police even raid into houses where they mistakenly believe the a**maggots live, but it turns out they don’t. And those houses have dogs.

    Are we trying to lose this contest on purpose?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  307. 301. …I can show leading to premeditated dog murder on the part of the officers with the benefit of 100% hindsight and not having to react to the situation in real time. Facts are irrelevant with hindsight and hypotheticals.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/5/2013 @ 9:47 pm

    Hayzoos H., daley, I can predictably predict if you don’t shut the barn door the horse is going to get out.

    Really, how hard is that?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  308. oh crap

    now the horse is gonna get shot

    this just gets better and better

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  309. I think that future tactical situations we could deploy pet negotiators or dog whispers. Perhaps we could get that lady who determined that dogs were color blind

    EPWJ (bdd0a6)

  310. Howzabout door or window whisperers? They can whisper, “Shut the window” and all of a sudden no problemo.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  311. The dog done died.
    Robert Byrd.

    mg (31009b)

  312. Hayzoos Admiral, the horse got out a lot earlier today.

    As far as I can tell virtually everybody here is just another Bozo on the Bus reviewing the same material but some are using the benefit of hindsight to justify substitute their judgement for the actions of trained LEOs on the scene and even having the audacity to call those judgements facts rather than opinions. Some people here got crappy educations if they can’t differentiate between a fact and an opinion and also believe that their opinions need to automatically carry more weight than others.

    It’s a familiar song.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  313. Comment by James Joyce (6bf508) — 7/5/2013 @ 9:36 pm

    VietnamEraVet is back.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  314. Colonel, maybe muttricide?

    Gazzer (b6a937)

  315. Gosh, crappyfeet, I hope you have to rely on the “piggy pigs” for your safety some day.

    that’s so mean

    but I try so hard for to be safe and self-reliant my biggest worry is bears

    I don’t have a good plan for in case of bears

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:54 pm

    Just make sure you’re in front of the guy behind you. The bear will get him instead of you.

    Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe)

  316. Some cops in real time are just as cowardly and afraid as everyone else and their first instinct is going to always be to save their own asses.. and now training and protocols are all about first saving ones own ass, then the other officers ass, and only maybe the citizens ass, so that works out great for the lower 2/3 of the force.
    So no they don’t pour motor oil; (although the guys who shot the hell out of the Torrance newspaper ladies because they thought the ladies were Chris Doerner should consider it next time.. not because it is a good idea, it is an extraordinarily and spectacularly dumb idea that only looks good in the comparison).
    The cops don’t think for themselves, because they are too busy thinking about themselves.
    And George Zimmerman would be an upgrade once he beats the murder lite rap.

    So some known, pain in the butt, local idiot took 4 of Hawthorne’s finest totally off their game with some loud music and a camera. The video is a First Amendment right and the noise is a nuisance call they wouldn’t even respond to if it was a citizen who called it in. But I am sure those cops are actually all heroes in waiting and geniuses to boot except when that Rosby guy is around.

    The public doesn’t understand cop protocols and procedures. They don’t understand cop rules on escalation of force. Because cop stuff doesn’t make sense to anyone who isn’t in the cop or cop sniffer bubble. And yes I said that. Cops live in their own cop bubble.

    By the way, how to deal with the Rosby’s of the world?
    Either ignore them or if you must deal with them, kill them with kindness. Escalation of force doesn’t work. Never ends well.
    Remember the old saying: never wrestle with a pig, you just get all muddy and the pig likes it? Rosby is a pig not a home invasion suspect.
    If a cop can’t diffuse or defer that situation to another time, maybe he should look for a job teaching badminton to 80 somethings over at the home.. or any other job he can do wearing a skort and sporting a practical IQ of 82

    SteveG (794291)

  317. Um, yeah. The supposed “context” doesn’t mean jack in this case. By the point the video even starts the police have already entered the house. So this idea that dog owner is endangering police is complete BS. There is no resisting arrest so that history is also complete BS. The only thing Rosby was doing that was a threat to the police was recording them. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen police react badly to being recorded either.
    As for the dog, obviously non violent. There are people around, yet the dog never barks at them. Its only when hands are place on the owner the dog barks. Yet the police never bother to allow the owner to secure it. Hell if the dog was such a threat why didn’t it immediately attack the officers? It only lunges when the cop tries to touch it. Well guess what? Thats what dogs do with strangers! They could have just left the dog there with no worry of injury. Or perhaps used mace, or a tazer. But not the brave men of the Hawthorne PD. Nope, these sick POS’s go for their guns right off the bat. Not to mention how many times did that sick POS fire his gun, 5? Overkill much?
    I’d bet thats not the first time that officer has taken a life. Too trigger happy for that to be his first. Wouldn’t be surprised to find out he has a history of violence.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  318. ok we’ll call that plan c

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  319. here is a nice music

    nothing fancy just nice

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  320. #287

    Wow, It’s like if someone had transcribed Robin Willims standup act from long ago – only without the humor. I’m going to wait for the movie version, if the movie isn’t too long.

    Actually, #287 is what a movie script part might look like after Christopher Walken has it “transcribed” for him to learn. Although I understand that Walken also omits all punctuation.

    felipe (6100bc)

  321. . If you read the blog The Truth about Guns they have reported a lot of instances of dog shooting.

    Gazzer, everyone agrees there are examples of bad shootings involving dogs… that doesn’t actually support a conclusion that this was another example.

    No, Dustin. Watch the video. Did the cops not confer at the center of the block before they turned to and arrested the guy?

    No, Steve. Watch the video. Did you not see that everyone thought the dog was secured in the car, and surprised when it turned out it was not? Unless the officers were confering with Ms Cleo, I don’t see what kind of point you are making. Unexpected things happen when situations get this complicated, and when deadly force is brought into the equation, we can thank God the cops did not resort to any of your solutions, such as spraying grizzly bear spray in the faces of other officers, or marching some potentially armed bad guy to his car at gun point (wher

    e they would then probably have to shoot the dog anyway).

    Anyway, this thread should make the five hundreth where you have special expertise and experience yet sound like you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.

    —–

    As for the dog, obviously non violent. There are people around, yet the dog never barks at them. Its only when hands are place on the owner the dog barks. Yet the police never bother to allow the owner to secure it. Hell if the dog was such a threat why didn’t it immediately attack the officers? It only lunges when the cop tries to touch it. Well guess what? Thats what dogs do with strangers! They could have just left the dog there with no worry of injury. Or perhaps used mace, or a tazer

    So the dog lunges, but it was not violent? The dog broke out of the car, but the police should have just left it there? The police never bother to allow the owner to secure it? He had apparently already attempted to, and it was too late when it turned out he failed. Tasers can kill dogs, btw. But the officers were focused on the man they were arresting.

    There is no resisting arrest so that history is also complete BS.

    That doesn’t follow. The man was putting on a show for the camera. He wanted to be arrested. He might as well have murdered his dog and absolutely needs to be charged with animal cruelty.

    Dustin (00241f)

  322. I continue to be impressed by the low IQ commenters who insist Rosby was arrested for taping the the police at work.

    Try reading the post and watching the video of the Chief of the Police.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  323. when i grow up i wanna be daleyrocks

    wif sprinkles

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  324. “So the dog lunges, but it was not violent? The dog broke out of the car, but the police should have just left it there? The police never bother to allow the owner to secure it? He had apparently already attempted to, and it was too late when it turned out he failed. Tasers can kill dogs, btw. But the officers were focused on the man they were arresting.”

    The dog only lunges when it itself is being threatened. If some random guy reaches for you, do you allow them to grab hold? Same reaction in a dog. You did watch the video right? Maybe a taser kills it, maybe not (judging by the size, not). But a taser would have shown the officer wasn’t blood thirsty POS.

    “” There is no resisting arrest so that history is also complete BS.

    That doesn’t follow. The man was putting on a show for the camera. He wanted to be arrested. He might as well have murdered his dog and absolutely needs to be charged with animal cruelty.””

    What did this have to do with the guys history of resisting arrest? According to Patterico its a reason for shooting the dog. Except there is no resisting. But now you’re blaming the victim? PLaying loud music and filming cops now gives thema license to shoot at whatever they want? Wow. Just Wow. Let me guess, your a cop who likes to rap your night stick against some hobo’s skull right? Cops never could possibly be at fault to your kind I guess. Seriously Dustin, you may want to get some help with the issues you are having.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  325. I hope you have to rely on the “piggy pigs” for your safety some day.

    Great curse! Bravo!

    Because if I do need help it means that I have to accept all the stupid stuff cops do as OK?
    I had no idea public safety was being held hostage in that way… I mean I knew we were being milked on pay and benefits over the price of safety, but this is getting to be a pretty revealing conversation about how far the boys in blue would like to have the public bend over for them.
    Thanks for making that ever more clear.

    Oh. And sometimes the inside of the cop bubble smells like a rancid korean BBQ fart. the public only finds out when it get accidentally popped… and then all I hear is a bunch of: heroes, lives on the line, procedures, public safety is priority one, only one bad cop, and other cop spokeshole misdirection worthy of Jay Carney. Nevermind the stench, look over here… heroes and bunnies.
    Worship us always or we won’t do our job.

    I need you the cop to do the job that you cash the paycheck for and trust me we differ on the specifics of that “job”… but being a cop that does the job doesn’t necessarily make you a better person in the aggregate so don’t insist on being on any sort of a pedestal.

    Here’s a curse for you… I hope you absolutely need me to save you some day, no one else is coming.. and I’ll do it without letting training, procedure, pay or protocol get between me and your life. You will probably be so grateful that you will consider for the briefest of moments waiving the jaywalking charges from when I illegally crossed the road to rescue you.

    SteveG (794291)

  326. “I continue to be impressed by the low IQ commenters who insist Rosby was arrested for taping the the police at work.

    Try reading the post and watching the video of the Chief of the Police.

    Comment by daleyrocks”

    Ok, he was supposedly arrested for “interfering” in an arrest. Yet 25 seconds in you see 4 cops enter the house. Are the Hawthorne police saying loud music disrupted the 4 guys who already went into the house? If so, Hawthorne needs to get better trained cops. Most professional PD’s his music would have been a nuisance.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  327. Steve’s 11:46 pm betrays the central oddity to his thinking. He is upset that when a cop was attacked by a dog, his first priority was officer safety. Between a cop and a dog, he officer was supposed to choose dog, and anyone who disagrees is apparently a ‘cop sniffer’, whatever Steve means by that.

    Dustin (00241f)

  328. Are the Hawthorne police saying loud music disrupted the 4 guys who already went into the house? If so, Hawthorne needs to get better trained cops.

    How do you train someone to have the ability to cancel noise? How are they supposed to operate safely that way?

    Ok, he was supposedly arrested for “interfering” in an arrest

    Indeed, when he was asked to turn off his radio, he freaked out and refused. He was well aware that he was interfering and plainly intentionally did so.

    Most professional PD’s his music would have been a nuisance.

    Maybe he can plea to being a public nuisance? That’s a crime too.

    Note what’s not being treated as a crime: recording the police. Those who keep going back to that lack personal integrity.

    Dustin (00241f)

  329. What is resisting arrest?
    Usually a bunch of cops shouting “stop resisting” and then everyone coincidentally writing the the same rehearsed sounding crap about non compliance with lawful commands down on their reports. And a crappy public defender.
    LA is full of fools who have been arrested a dozen times, pleading out to whatever, who are on a practical level no more dangerous to law enforcement than the potted plants outside Chik-Fil-A

    SteveG (794291)

  330. Zaggs – Are you mentally challenged? Do you even understand Patterico’s post? Where did Patterico claim resisting arrest was a reason for shooting the dog?

    Derp!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  331. Mr. Feets – If you stop eating those vegan pancakes you might gro up to be big and strong.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  332. To put my response in context, understand I am a big fan and read your blog frequently.

    Okay, the context you provided explains the arrest of the man. Peoples concern was understandably aroused considering the rash of illegal arrests police across the country have made of bystanders who use cell phones and cameras to legally record police activity.

    But the context you provided does not excuse the gunfire used to subdue the dog.

    Brad (e6557d)

  333. If their only plan to deal with dogs when they raid a house or arrest some guy walking or driving with his dog then obviously that’s their preferred option. If it weren’t then they’d come up with a way to deal with dogs that didn’t involve shooting them.

    Yeah that’s the ticket! You know, when I was an LEO, the first thing that I thought of when I put on my uniform, badge, and Sam Browne that weighed about 14 pounds was, ” I think tonight I”ll just go out and shoot me a dog!” NOT

    Most of the time you don’t have to deal with dogs unless you have to access backyards. So on a day to day basis, most of the dogs you deal with are the small variety and are usually not much of a threat.

    But when I am participating in a “raid a house”, it is usually for that violent type of felon, be it drugs, armed robbery suspect, rapist, murderer, etc…., that I am mainly concerned with, and I am not carrying an Animal Control Officer in my back pocket. I also am not carrying a net gun on my belt, mace or stun gun in my hand, that is filled with my weapon of choice which was usually a shotgun. See, I am more concerned with the violent perp that I am after, and not the damn dog.

    So, if in the course of our raid, the perp has a big vicious attack type dog that looks like he is going tear my arm off and use it as a chew toy, I have ONE and only ONE recourse, and that is to shoot the f@cking dog. I am definitely NOT going to drop my weapon and try to re-arm myself with something less lethal, because then the perp pops out and blows me away.

    When I am dealing with an armed and barricaded armed robbery suspect, the last thing I need is some asshole intentionally blaring his loud music which covers radio and voice communications between me and other officers on street. This endangers not only me and my fellow officers, but also any possible hostages that the perp has. If the outside officers can’t hear radio communications that hostages are exiting the building, and simultaneously hear what sounds to be gunshots coming from inside, GUESS WHO POSSIBLY GETS SHOT?

    Guess who all these inexperienced arm chair cops with sh!t for brains are going to blame then? The same “cops” that didn’t arrest the asshole with the dog for intentionally blaring his loud ass music, and shooting the damn dog if they needed to. I just love these folks with eagle-eye 20/20 eyesight that don’t know sh!t about police work, but become johnny-on-the-spot experts by watching a video or reading a book.

    Watch what happened when reporters that were criticizing Police for shootings were given the opportunity to partake of the Shoot-Don’t-Shoot training. They ended up either being shot, or shooting when unnecessary, shooting the wrong person, or just hitting innocent bystanders. But they did learn one valuable thing, IT’S NOT SO F@CKING EASY TO MAKE THOSE SNAP-SECOND DECISIONS WHEN YOUR OR YOUR PARTNERS LIFE MAY BE ON THE LINE!

    By the way, I have owned dogs all of my life, and never wanted to shoot one period. BUT, I did have to one time, and to this day, it never really goes away. Situation was this: Sent on domestic disturbance call with ambulance en-route also. Report was that man had hit his wife in head with baseball bat on his front porch and was called in by neighbor. Upon arrival at scene, observed man on front porch, beer in hand, bloody bat laying on porch near his wife, the victim, who was unconscious. My dilemma? There was a big f@cking German Shepherd in the fenced in front yard that was trying to get thru the fence and have my ass for lunch.

    What to do, what to do? Do I wait 30 mins for animal control to arrive? NO, victim’s life possibly in danger! Do i take the magic net gun off my already overloaded duty belt? Nope don’t have the spare room to carry one. Do I use mace or pepper spray? UH HELL NO! It’s outside with breeze, might blow back and incapacitate me, and also usually doesn’t work on big mad badass dogs.

    NO, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO! SPRINKLE MAGIC FAIRY DUST ON THE DOG AND HE BECOMES ALL FRIENDLY AND SH!T! Oops, I don’t have any! No I do the only thing that is feasible since I am a Police Officer, and not a f@cking animal control officer that you can’t let enter into the crime scene area for his safety. I shoot the dog with my shotgun, I do not let him near the dog and gate as he could turn it on me, I do not let him put it in the house as he could run in and arm himself with not only the dog but also a firearm, and that while I still have to shoot dog that is now attacking me, he shoots me with his newly acquired firearm while I am dealing with a badass dog munching on my arm or leg. (would much rather have shot the asshole perp) He then meekly submitted to arrest (I wonder Why?) I then advised paramedics that they could come to scene and treat critically injured victim.

    When it comes down to it, a Police Officers business is not about trying to protect any pets life above his/her life and safety, the lives of fellow officers, and especially the lives of civilians. No, 99.999999999% of officers never want to have to shoot even a dog, but sometimes sh!t happens. So no, generally police do not take contingencies to safely handle a dangerous animal, because it is not a common everyday occurrence, and basically it’s because we are generally worried more about the other much more dangerous animal. You know, the one with the opposable thumb that is capable of holding a gun, a knife, a club, or even a bomb, the one we call the perp.

    When it comes to the above vid, officer made a righteous shooting. After trying to restrain the dog by its leash, the dog attacked with his weapons, his bigass teeth. Just like a human perp lunging with a knife, pointing a firearm at you, or running and swinging the old blunt object, you shoot the canine perp in order to protect yourself, because you are generally armed with weapons that are useful for dealing with human perps, not animal ones. So, if you’re not a Police Officer and don’t know Jack Shitt about police work, please don’t try and tell me how to do it. If you’re a doctor, firefighter, engineer, garbageman, nurse, computer programmer, hairdresser, store clerk, etc………….., I won’t try and tell you how to do yours!

    Oh by the way Patterico, in my former jurisdiction, we would have charged the perp with Felony Obstruction with a penalty of 2-10 years in the state house since he was obstructing the officers while making a Felony Arrest.

    peedoffamerican (35b482)

  334. pancakes make you staunch, Mr. feets.

    mg (31009b)

  335. Dustin

    If you think that was an “attack” then you are huffing, not sniffing. I know you sorta like to curry favor picking up the towels around the cop shop lockerroom with the bigshots here, but this is a little much even by your standards.

    My central point is that I do not think that was an attack.
    I know dogs pretty well.
    From the video, I would not have been afraid of that dog. From the video I am afraid to be around that cop (as he seems a bit trigger happy)
    Is there a K-9 trainer in the house?
    (not a K9 officer… big difference)

    One of my buddies became a K9 officer out in Las Vegas… I’d go out there to visit when he was doing swing shift and do ride alongs.. his K9 was a high strung mess that vocalized incessantly whenever he left the vehicle.
    I was a little afraid of that dog. Some random pit bull understands NO!.
    This dog did not. Answered to German commands like Halt!

    I think I remember 20 or more years ago a guy startling my dog (who was asleep in my truck) and my dog jumped up startled, not vicious, but he barked deep. The guy was scared too, it was all an accidental thing and one I could easily fix by calming my dog and maybe introducing the guy to the dog. But Ms Peed Pants guy first gets all queenied up and then gets all macho and tells me he’s going to shoot my dog. So I get him by the throat and ask him why he is threatening to shoot me, because surely he understands that he is going to have to shoot me first right? So say it. You are going to shoot me? Or not?
    I had to let him go before someone called 911 but I told him everything was OK. You were startled, it is OK to have some fear. But don’t ever let me see you near me or my dog again, because I will assume you’ve got a gun and intend to use it.. and if you do bring a gun I’d suggest you use it quick before I take it away from you.
    He was a chickenshit little man hiding in a fat body that made him look big… didn’t even have the stones to call the cops.

    Anyway, I digress.

    Dustin, glad to help you burrow in a little closer to your goal.

    steveg (794291)

  336. But the context you provided does not excuse the gunfire used to subdue the dog.

    Comment by Brad (e6557d) — 7/6/2013 @ 1:56 am

    Because the dog was attacking with his own set of weapons, when he lunged at the officer trying to control the dog with the leash and tried to bite him with those same weapons, you know, those bigass teeth of his.

    peedoffamerican (127915)

  337. Have you even watched the video or read the narative or read any of the links? Quit asking asinine questions, it has been answered with the video, the post itself, the host’s replies in yellow to other commenters, and also by several other commenters as well that took the time to read, watch, and click!

    peedoffamerican (04dfe5)

  338. as well that took the time to read, watch, and click! And comprehend!

    peedoffamerican (04dfe5)

  339. Usually a bunch of cops shouting “stop resisting” and then everyone coincidentally writing the the same rehearsed sounding crap about non compliance with lawful commands down on their reports.

    Quite the extreme generalization. Based, as usual, on your expertise in all matters.

    Easy for you to say. LA is also full of extremely dangerous people. How are you supposed to tell which is the next one you deal with?

    Here are the fifty three cops who have died so far this year. It goes without saying that most of the situations police encounter are not dangerous, and most of the people they encounter are not dangerous. But enough of them are dangerous. On the bad days, they get attacked by a 100 pound rottweiler because the owner was trying to instigate something he could sue over. On the good days, you get smeared by foolish know-it-alls on the internet because they are certain they could do your job better.

    Dustin (fe645c)

  340. My last two paragraphs were supposed to be a response to “LA is full of fools who have been arrested a dozen times, pleading out to whatever, who are on a practical level no more dangerous to law enforcement than the potted plants outside Chik-Fil-A”

    Dustin (fe645c)

  341. First Steve57 goes off the rails, then shift change has Steveg, continuing the dog over public servant argument.

    Stevies in stereo, I WONDER which stevie is going to show up and tell us save the dog shoot the cop

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  342. I think he’s on the ground rolling around involuntarily crying and unable to hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo, let alone a dog.
    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:15 pm

    Why would anyone try to hit the broad side of a barn with a dog? 😉

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  343. :/

    Dustin (ea70e1)

  344. You are all just a bunch of badge licking authoritarians!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  345. I’ve held off and waited to see if any other commenters had seen the so-called “smoking gun” (no pun intended)… but none have. I ask that you re-watch the video and look at the provocation that begins at approximately 48 seconds into the vid… society must not, indeed, can not condone such brazen disrespect for law enforcement.

    Colonel Haiku (7b4789)

  346. My friend steve57 wrote above (#304 — 7/5/2013 @ 10:01 pm), in response to my earlier comment:

    Obviously the cops arrest some real a**maggots. Sometimes the a**maggots own dogs. Sometimes the police even raid into houses where they mistakenly believe the a**maggots live, but it turns out they don’t. And those houses have dogs.

    Are we trying to lose this contest on purpose?

    I don’t disagree with what you wrote, but I don’t see how it applies to this situation.
    I’m also concerned about inadequate care being taken by police in no-knock raids — the sort of situation which I’m guessing your comments were addressed to.

    But this wasn’t that. This wasn’t even close to that. And regardless of whether there was adequate justification for the police to arrest the dog’s owner — I’m inclined to think there probably was, but I can see room for reasonable people to disagree about that — that question is very distinct from the question whether the police were justified in shooting the dog when it leapt from the car and advanced on them.

    This was a dog who had been properly leashed in public in the midst of many other people — not a dog in someone’s house or backyard — but that was then placed, by its owner, inside a car with its windows down. That’s no different than simply setting the dog loose in a crowded public area, and it was done in circumstances in which the owner obviously anticipated being, at a minimum, distracted for a few minutes while responding to the police (even if he didn’t think he was about to be arrested).

    The owner should have secured the dog — either inside the car, or by tying off the leash to something (or perhaps handing it to a friend whom the dog knew and who could be counted on to keep the dog in control). No one but the owner had that responsibility, and probably no one but the owner could have discharged it in a way that would keep the dog, and everyone around the dog, safe.

    When you let a dog run loose in a crowded public area, as this dog’s owner did, you’re asking for trouble. The dog could just as easily have run into traffic and been killed by a car; had that happened, this would be a non-story, a non-event, for everyone except the few people who loved that dog and the driver of the car that ran over it. The important thing is not the particular kind of trouble the dog got into, but this:

    Once the owner left the dog unsecured in a car with its windows open, the owner had effectively abandoned the dog to any fate that might befall it.

    Here I’m sorry that the particular trouble this unsecured dog got into took the form of the dog trying to defend its owner in circumstances where the law doesn’t permit that. The dog didn’t know better; but the owner certainly should have. And once the owner had left the dog unsecured in the car and the dog leapt from the car, then the cops had no choice that didn’t depend on hoping the dog would change its mind, which they certainly couldn’t rely upon. Indeed the dog, after first appearing to be confused and somewhat deterred, was returning to what looked like an aggressive attack. Had I been one of the cops, I probably would have shot it several seconds earlier, in fact.

    I honestly don’t know what contest you mean. But maybe I’m misunderstanding more than that as well, either in your reaction to my original comment or, perhaps, regarding the underlying facts.

    Beldar (4fb95c)

  347. Unfortunately, in my experience with LAPD cops:

    I met an LAPD sergeant who pulled out his photo-album and showed me pics of all the minorities he’d been privileged to use his nightstick on. What struck me was that he was so used to working in a racist environment, he couldn’t see why someone might be shocked/disgusted about what he was proud about.

    I also thought it said a lot that this guy was promoted to Sergeant – his superiors HAD to be aware of how racist he was, and if they were not, then they should have been fired for not knowing.

    By all accounts, LAPD has a century-long history of being racist – why would anyone expect that to change, and why would anyone expect the people living in LA to expect LAPD to not be racist?

    And I say this as a 50-year-old white guy, who doesn’t live in LA.

    Fred (11cbdb)

  348. Comment by Colonel Haiku (7b4789) — 7/6/2013 @ 7:57 am

    There seems to be a lot of “pissing” going on in this altercation, and its aftermath; the dog just seems to be the only one who did it literally, and is on “tape”.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  349. So, what do you think would have happened if the man had his child in the car, perhaps with his wife. And the child jumped out to follow his daddy, who seemed be going somewhere. And in doing so the child startled the police?

    Mike Giles (3b469a)

  350. Fred, Hawthorne is a separate city from Los Angeles, patrolled by its own PD.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  351. that would depend on the race of the wee small child Mr. Giles

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  352. How old is the child, and how many teeth does it have.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  353. I met an LAPD sergeant who pulled out his photo-album and showed me pics of all the minorities he’d been privileged to use his nightstick on. What struck me was that he was so used to working in a racist environment, he couldn’t see why someone might be shocked/disgusted about what he was proud about.

    I also thought it said a lot that this guy was promoted to Sergeant – his superiors HAD to be aware of how racist he was, and if they were not, then they should have been fired for not knowing.

    By all accounts, LAPD has a century-long history of being racist – why would anyone expect that to change, and why would anyone expect the people living in LA to expect LAPD to not be racist?

    This guy wasn’t a sociopath. He was probably over-aggrieved about racial and police-mistreatment issues to his fellow man, although not without at least some reason, one suspects. In his own way, he demonstrated a caring for his community.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  354. Just another Community Organizer doing what community organizers do best – fling $hit!

    askeptic (2bb434)

  355. And I say this as a 50-year-old white guy, who doesn’t live in LA.

    So where do you live? If it’s in a rather protected little cocoon somewhere in the distant yonder, then you have to admit that it’s easy to talk the talk when you don’t have to walk the walk. Or if you’re a person who doesn’t understand (or accept) the concept that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.”

    However, I also am very wary of just how irrational and immature people can be — in instances where “racist” isn’t necessarily an overused word — or what was on full display a few days ago with liberal (and supposed do-gooder) Alec Baldwin.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  356. I think Christoph lives in Canada.

    nk (875f57)

  357. First, I’ll stipulate that Rosby is a gadfly who seems to enjoy baiting cops (this is not unusual among people who video the police). He’s not reacting to the situation as much as the fact that the police live rent-free in his head. He needs a life (and now, a dog). He’s probably a complete asshole, whom none of us would like in person. We all know the type.

    But the cops seem to be unreasonably teed off at him, and that brings to up the question of who is living in whose head. Their first story was they arrested Rosby for filming. (And that’s probably the truth, or that they arrested him for just being an asshole. Neither of which is a crime, to the chagrin of prison builders everywhere). So then the police spokesman changed the story, and says they arrested him for loud music. Our host explains that the loud music created a dangerous situation by making it hard for the cops to communicate (yet we hear the two doper-sounding dudes’ conversational speech, who shot the video and are closer to Rosby’s car than the cops, clearly).

    OK, well, he’s an advocate, and he has to prosecute cases like this and defend cops like these. Tough job.

    Now, exercise for the reader: pull the police blotter in Hawthorne, CA for the last year. Count the “loud music” arrests. Google the arrestees. How many are on the PD’s “unwritten $#!+ list”?

    The two pudgy cops with the MP5s seemed to be just going through the motions, doing the job that keeps ’em in donuts. The coward in the sunglasses was looking for an excuse to shoot something. The chief is a typical mealy-mouthed politician. You can tell when he’s lying: his lips move.

    You wanna shoot stuff, I’m sure there’s a recruiter’s office in Hawthorne. Be aware, though, if you go that route, stuff shoots back.

    On the other hand, reading some of the brain-dead threats that our host reports that people have made against the cops and the department is depressing. No wonder cops develop an us-against-them, kill-em-all-let-God-sort-em-out, in-group morality. Kind of like outlaw bike gangs that way.

    This would be easily defused if the department (and PDs in general) would set the entry bar high enough, and take out the trash that somehow limbos under. But they won’t. Every cop knows he can do damn near anything and then recite the get-ou-of-trouble-free mantra the PBA lawyer gives him: “I was in fear for my life.” Every cop knows that there is a bad cop on his shift/precinct/department, knows who it is, and would rather enable that bum than “snitch.”

    If you’re so damn squirrelly that you can’t control a dog without going to the gun in cowardly panic, turn in the badge and take up accounting. If that guy is ever up against a real threat, he’s going to lose because he can’t keep his cool. He’s a threat to the other cops and the department (and as we’ve seen, to the public. Hey, where did his rounds go after the dog? He wasn’t paying any attention).

    This is going to be the most expensive dog in a while. Not that the chief or the cops care what their lack of personnel selection & assessment is going to cost the chump taxpayers. Thin blue line and sovereign immunity FTW.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (2165ef)

  358. If you’re so damn squirrelly that you can’t control a dog without going to the gun in cowardly panic, turn in the badge and take up accounting.

    I’ve just watched the video and I agree with your take on things. The telling aspect of the cop is when he at first approaches the dog, as though he thought the dog would happily sit down and comply. If the cop feels like a nitwit, he deserves to.

    One reason why I’m increasingly spooked about this society becoming more and more like that of a Mexico, is that when corruption and dumbed-down behavior are so widespread from top to bottom, from A to Z, that no one can be trusted or relied upon.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  359. But the cops seem to be unreasonably teed off at him,

    Yeah, they were only going out on an armed robber and thus potentially in great danger, when this asshole interfered, risking their lives.

    If you’re so damn squirrelly that you can’t control a dog without going to the gun in cowardly panic, turn in the badge and take up accounting

    It’s a huge Rottweiler, and the officers actually did try to control it by hand.

    he’s going to lose because he can’t keep his cool

    They took decisive action with little time to react, so this appears to be wrong.

    Every cop knows that there is a bad cop on his shift/precinct/department, knows who it is, and would rather enable that bum than “snitch.”

    Maybe this is true on television shows, but I don’t think most cops are silent in the face of universal police corruption around them.

    This is going to be the most expensive dog in a while.

    It was a blatantly legitimate self defense shooting. The nutjob was already suing, so what difference does it make?

    The coward in the sunglasses was looking for an excuse to shoot something.

    That’s not what the video shows at all, but hey, you’re the expert.

    Dustin (ea70e1)

  360. So, what do you think would have happened if the man had his child in the car, perhaps with his wife. And the child jumped out to follow his daddy, who seemed be going somewhere. And in doing so the child startled the police?

    Comment by Mike Giles (3b469a) — 7/6/2013

    Um, nothing? Given that the cops do not shoot the dog when it emerges from the car, trying to get it under control with minimal force, and only shot it when it became aggressive and lunged…

    But hey, don’t let me stand in the way of a good rant.

    Dustin (ea70e1)

  361. “…set the entry bar high enough…”

    The problem, Kevin, is that the bar height has been set by the Civil-Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice through the Consent Decrees that have been entered against many urban PD’s (LAPD was just released from their decade long “incarceration”).
    Yes, departments need to be more selective, it’s just that they (and their City’s) cannot afford the extended litigation that such standards generate.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  362. 357…more….

    This is why it is so important to change the culture within the Apparat in DC – to open the scuppers, heal the Leviathan over, and allow the detritus to wash over the side.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  363. Google “puppycide.” This isn’t a rare occurance.

    It’s amazing that the Postal Service doesn’t haw to shoot dogs everyday like cops apparently have to. Or Animal Control, for that matter.

    Do you people honestly not remember the “No Hesitation” targets cops were using just earlier this year? To train them, the police, the enforcers of law, to NOT hesitate at the site of a child or pregnant woman holding a gun… You guys don’t remember that?

    The only context that could have justified this shooting would be the owner yelling “SIC EM, boy!”

    As for the Zimmerman comparison, that’s real retarded, sir. The dog wasn’t on top of the cop mauling him about the far and head.

    If this was a regular armed citizen who shot a dog that they saw jump out of a car window, and the armed citizen had no injuries, just stated that he was scared that the dog would attack… C’mon, we all know that that citizen is the worst example of a gun owner ever, and no one would feel bad about taking his gun away and sending him to jail for animal abuse. But give the prick a badge, and now everything is different.

    They’ve made Jimbo and Ned (“it’s comin right for us!”) into police officers. What couples possibly go wrong?

    Ghost (2d8874)

  364. Wow. Eff auto-correct. *about the FACE and head.* *what COULD possibly go wrong.*

    Ghost (2d8874)

  365. …but I don’t think most cops are silent in the face of universal police corruption around them.

    Hahahahaha! Yeah they are. Most cops are either silent or complicit. The ones who stand up in the face of universal police corruption are often demoted or fired. Regina Tasca stopped two officers from beating an unarmed teenager to death, and she was fired. In fact, wasn’t that Dorner’s complaint? Being demoted for reporting police misconduct?

    Ghost (2d8874)

  366. Here’s the problem as I see it, the crux of it being, why didn’t the police have Rosby secure the dog in the back of a police car? The level of this controversy revolves around the dog being killed and doing that instead of having Rosby secure it in his vehicle would have made this a run-of-the-mill event.

    Granted, that view is put forward in hindsight, but let me try to show that it should have been foresight and in keeping with standard police procedure activity.

    First, though, let me address the context of Rosby’s history. Either, the police involved knew Rosby’s history of, for lack of a better descriptor, instigating commotion vis-a-vis the police, or they didn’t. If they did, then that would be a mark against them since they should be on heightened alert to problems that might occur. I don’t know what to make of their Andy of Mayberry (not a slur or smear but a reference to the small town type treatment Rosby got up to the and including the actual cuffing. It’s not often one gets informed of being arrested and still gets to go back to place the dog in the car, turn own the radio and secure the vehicle (which Rosby didn’t wrt the dog anyway) not just unescorted but the cops walk away from the arrest while the arrestee is doing so. That the way it looks, anyway, from the vid meshed with the paper’s story, so I could be wrong about that. Maybe they did the A of M thing because of the dog, maybe they did it in an effort to leave Rosby no room for complaint. In a sense I’d commend them for that approach it was any of that and just hazard to think if they couldn’t have just given him a citation and send him home, or say your are arrested for obstruction, now go home and report to the police station at 10 AM tomorrow without the dog — can they do that? Whatever, I’m getting off track.

    Back on track to the crux now. The dog, like a gun, is a potentially deadly weapon. it’s also property. Unlike a gun and a lot of other property possessed by a man arrested, it becomes decidedly not deadly if it dies in the unattended car while the police drive off with the arrestee. But also unlike other property in possession of a man arrested, why did the police not impound/confiscate/acquire the dog from a property standpoint , from a control of the situation standpoint or just a humanitarian standpoint? Or at least attempt it by asking Rosby to put the dog in a police car — there were about five of them there? That action and those reasons seem to me to be well within the foresight parameters of good police judgment and handing an arrest situation. They certainly wouldn’t have let Rosby store a legally owned firearm in the trunk or glove compartment if he had had possession of one, but even if they had let him the police would have made sure he’d done it properly and been pretty darn adamant about doing it to their satisfaction.

    Much as I’m pulled by the heartstrings of imagining my long passed away dog in such a situation, I must still realize it’s just property, that’s it just a dog. What happened was an accident not much unlike hitting a dog crossing the street because you were not paying full attention to your duty to drive safely. Complacency kills sometimes. I realize the police can’t admit any responsibility because … LAWSUITS! … but I do hope that they will use this internally to correct the deficiencies apparent from the handling of this situation.

    Dusty (50e0a5)

  367. Regarding the term “puppycide”: what does the term “puppy” have to do with this dog, other than as a cheap and frankly dishonest rhetorical device to make a potentially dangerous dog sound small, cute, and harmless?

    Patterico (90470c)

  368. Ghost, can you define rare, please? If there are tens of thousands of interactions between a cop and a dog every day, and there’s a dog shooting every month or so, is it rare?

    Yeah they are. Most cops are either silent or complicit. The ones who stand up in the face of universal police corruption are often demoted or fired.

    In the movies, yeah.

    Regina Tasca stopped two officers from beating an unarmed teenager to death, and she was fired.

    So your example proving officers are silent is that an officer wasn’t? Or is it that you take for granted that all departments have rampant corruption, so the lack of evidence of this corruption proves officers are silent about it?

    Dustin (ea70e1)

  369. Kevin O’Brien,

    Cite for the claim that the cops arrested him for filming? And then changed their story? (“My ass” will not be accepted as a sufficient answer.)

    You do realize that those two cops were not the only cops at the scene whose actions were impeded by the loud music. And that the guys filming said they couldn’t hear shit because of the music. You kinda left that part out, but hey, seems like you’re an advocate for an anti-cop point of view, so that distortion is to be expected I guess. (Just playing your rhetorical game here.)

    So you’re fine with someone going into the middle of a tense standoff with a violent felony suspect and blasting music so that people trying to deal with the situation have a hard time hearing one another. Does that seem like a sensible stance you are taking?

    I do not prosecute cases like this, by the way. I prosecute gang murders. Please don’t act like you know what I do when you clearly don’t.

    Patterico (5a049c)

  370. I think whistleblowers in any organization get turned on by the organization. Including cops.

    Patterico (5a049c)

  371. As for the Zimmerman comparison, that’s real retarded, sir.

    Unlike that case, I don’t mind a divergence of opinion on this one. I can see a benefit of the doubt being applied to either side, and it not resulting in one viewpoint or the other “beclowning” itself.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  372. Kevin R.C. O’Brien’s comment was the first time I read, anywhere, that the Hawthorne police claimed they were arresting Rosby for “filming” and then “changed their story” to arresting him for “loud music.”

    I will be fascinated to see if O’Brien can offer any cite for this other than his hind quarters.

    Or if he can see through the haze of his cop hate to come back and admit he was wrong and they never made any such claim.

    By the way, the claim that Rosby was arrested for “loud music” is not quite accurate. He was arrested for obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duties.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  373. To the person posting as “Ghost” (#358 — 7/6/2013 @ 9:25 am): You wrote:

    As for the Zimmerman comparison, that’s real retarded, sir. The dog wasn’t on top of the cop mauling him about the fa[ce] and head.

    I’m not sure if your insult was directed at me or someone else who mentioned the Zimmerman case in comments on this post. I don’t trade insults, and I don’t feed trolls.

    I don’t recall interacting with you before, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply say this:

    A dog like the one in this video doesn’t need to be “on top” of someone, nor near someone’s face or head, to be extremely dangerous.

    So there are two possibilities that occur to me as the explanation for your comment and its accompanying insult:

    You’re genuinely unacquainted with large dogs and their potential dangers, in which case you’re not very fit to be commenting on this post.

    — or —

    You’re a troll.

    Either way, I doubt I’ll have anything further to say to you, or about anything you write here, ever.

    Beldar (4fb95c)

  374. The “puppy”, according to reports, was three years old and weighed 120 lbs. (I know some say 130).

    the persnickety nk (875f57)

  375. The “puppy”, according to reports, was three years old and weighed 120 lbs. (I know some say 130).

    “Dogicide” doesn’t have the same rhetorical punch. Facts be damned, it’s a puppycide. And the cops changed their story, per Kevin R.C. O’Brien’s derriere.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  376. All I see is a lot more unfounded assumptions about what the police might or might not have been planning on doing to do if they were going to remove Rosby from the scene.

    Could the police have turned down the music in his car and raised the windows if the Rottweiler remained in the car? Presumably they would have needed Rosby’s permission or needed to ask him to do it himself. Given the turn of events, who knows whether that was part of the plan, but wouldn’t the Rottweiler have reacted territorially to anyone but its owner reaching into the car? We’ll never know. Rosby’s showboating and walking away from the car leaving the windows open and turning his back to the police with his arms behind his back with the “cuff me now dickheads” attitude certainly did not help the situation. At a minimum Rosby could have secured the dog’s leash to the steering wheel, a seat pedestal or something else in the interior unless he felt it was so well trained there was no possibility it would jump through the open windows he had left for it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  377. Tuesdays are Cap a Canine Day in Hawthorne!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  378. Former conservative @348 I just got home and opened up this thread to see your story. I call BS on that story. No Sgt in his right mind would do something like that. Actually no cop with a brain cell would ever admit to something like that much less do it. That is prison time. Who did you notify about this sociopathic Sgt. so as to stop his beating of minorities? I know you could’t have just let it go.

    Where would he get the photos to put in this photo album that he carries around with him, does he carry a polaroid around with him?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  379. Lbcatcher – I think the Hawthorne police should have called in helicopters to drop in bucket loads of sand to create a berm between Rosby’s car and where they were holding him to give the Rottweiler an obstacle to scale. They were obviously not forward thinking enough in dealing with this situation.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  380. Polaroid??? Is it 1972 again? Where’s James garner when you need him?

    Gazzer (75c86c)

  381. It’s in blockquote, Lbcatcher: it’s Fred’s story.

    I have some qualms about the story too, the part about keeping a photo album. Would you really take pictures of all the “minorities” you abused in your career? Sort of like a serial killer taking trophies? I don’t blame you for doubting the story. I’d be interested to hear more from Fred about the photo album.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  382. So your example proving officers are silent is that an officer wasn’t? Or is it that you take for granted that all departments have rampant corruption, so the lack of evidence of this corruption proves officers are silent about it?

    My example was that the cop who did the right thing was fired for doing the right thing. As in, she’s no longer a cop. The rest of them are silent or complicit, because the ones who do the right thing are systematically eliminated. That’s not a problem for you?

    As for “puppycide” being a cheap rhetorical pull at emotion, you’re damn right. I worked with monkeys on a daily basis for two years (mostly rhesus and Japanese snow monkeys, but occasionally babboons as well), which are much more aggressive and agile than dogs. Cops have tazers, batons, and pepper spray. I had a net. Somehow, I never had to execute any of the monkeys that legitimately wanted and was trying to rip my face off. And I don’t have years of police training. No one would begrudge a cop for thumping an aggressive dog with his baton once or twice in self defense.

    The problem here is that cops are too often too eager to use lethal force where it isn’t necessary. And the bigger problem is the fact that a lot of people are willing to excuse that behavior, because, as Patricia said, cops aren’t perfect, but shes willing to pretend they are.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  383. In order to facilitate my obsessive/compulsive attempts to obstruct police officers while they’re apprehending felons, my 3 year old 120 lb attack puppydoggie, Pinkbelly, has been scientifically conditioned to just go ahead and put up the car windows and turn down the radio all by himself, then he uses my cellphone to call the public defender’s office. Of course he can’t speak English or Spanglish very well but he knows which button to push to start the pre-recorded tape.

    So, when the police get fed-up with my interference and start to handcuff me, Pinkbelly knows exactly what to do to keep himself safe and protect my right to harass LEOs.

    Now, is this a great country, or what? Don’t believe me, ask Pinkbelly.

    ropelight (0a59a0)

  384. One shot with a Taser kills a 120 pound Rottweiler? One shot with a Taser kills a 120 pound human? Of course not!

    Canines are especially electric-shock sensitive? YouTube, cop tasers Rottweiler

    When things don’t go well with the first scheme, panic, then shoot. Great training, there.

    Bad, bad dog. Tasered and caught.

    htom (412a17)

  385. Cops have tazers, batons, and pepper spray. I had a net. Somehow, I never had to execute any of the monkeys that legitimately wanted and was trying to rip my face off. And I don’t have years of police training. No one would begrudge a cop for thumping an aggressive dog with his baton once or twice in self defense.

    The problem here is that cops are too often too eager to use lethal force where it isn’t necessary. And the bigger problem is the fact that a lot of people are willing to excuse that behavior, because, as Patricia said, cops aren’t perfect, but shes willing to pretend they are.

    Comment by Ghost (2d8874) — 7/6/2013 @ 12:06 pm

    Yes you had the proper equipment to deal with monkeys, BECAUSE you were dealing with monkeys on a day-to-day basis. Police deal with humans on a day-to-day basis and are therefore had the equipment to deal with humans, NOT BIGASS DOGS!

    No one would begrudge a cop for thumping an aggressive dog with his baton once or twice in self defense.

    Good luck with that moron. Ever try to stop a bigass dog with just a couple of thumps with a baton? It doesn’t quite work that way! Usually, when the dog is in attack mode, it takes rather more than just a couple of polite thumps from a baton to quell the attack, as the first couple of thumps tend to enrage the dog even more. Therefore the police would have been forced to swing away, and would have then been accused of mercilessly beating the dog, when people like you would then say that they should have shot it instead of beating it to death!

    The problem here is that cops are too often too eager to use lethal force where it isn’t necessary.

    Yeah police get up everyday and think, “Hey I’ll go out tonite and kill me somebody! Get real you unbelievable know-nothing little twit! No, everytime you put that uniform and badge on, you’re praying that you are able to come back to that same spot and take it off, because you have not been shot by some little snot nosed punk that you were only issuing a citation to. Or run over by a drunk driver or some asshole not paying attention while you directing or assisting at a major accident scene. Or while intervening in a domestic disturbance, that while attempting to arrest the husband for beating the sh!t out of his wife, she suddenly decides she lurvs him so much that she just can’t let him go. She then grabs a knife and sticks it in your back, grabs a gun and blasts away, or simply takes off one of her spike high heeled shoes and buries it in your f@ucking skull. From which the officer lies in hospital for three days with his family surrounding him, as he finally dies without ever having regained consciousness, not even being able to kiss his wife and three now to be orphans goodbye.

    It’s funny not hearing about all these so-called uses of deadly force by police on a day-to-day basis! It’s because they don’t f@cking happen that much. You occasionally hear of misuse of deadly force by police, and you hear about it on a 24/7 basis from the MSM when that one does rarely occur.

    The last thing that any officer wants to do is use deadly force or even any other force. We would much rather not have to worry about impending criminal trials, civil lawsuits, or emotional trauma to us and our families that comes from the use of such force. In fact, we would much rather drive around drinking our coffee and munching on a donut, than have to jeopardize our life for an ungrateful prick like you. But we do it anyway, not because of the power we have, not because of thrills, but because its our job that we do to make maybe just that little bit of difference in someone’s life situation.

    Did you know that when a person straps on that uniform, he is decreasing HIS/HER life expectancy by 10 years? Not just from the dangers of being killed on duty, but from the daily stress, bad food, long hours, changing shifts, etc., that officers experience. Not to mention the greater incidence of divorce for LEO’s. And we do it all for miserable little ingrates like you that have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about, and couldn’t buy a clue from Vanna White!


    And the bigger problem is the fact that a lot of people are willing to excuse that behavior, because, as Patricia said, cops aren’t perfect, but shes willing to pretend they are.

    Comment by Ghost (2d8874) — 7/6/2013 @ 12:06 pm

    No that’s not what she is saying at all. Police are not perfect, they are not saints, they are not superhuman heroes, they are not some mystical seer that can predict what is going to happen in every scenario. What she is saying, is that they are human, dealing with stressful situations on a regular basis, and can and do make mistakes sometimes. Because of that she is willing to overlook some mistakes they make, because in total they don’t make as many mistakes as compared to the right decisions and actions they make on a regular basis.

    I am so glad that you are just so perfect that you have never made a mistake in your life. Who do you think you are the Second Coming of Christ or something?

    peedoffamerican (35b482)

  386. Peedoff, I wish I had said that. In fact I think I will send it to my first 2 wives.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  387. Feel free to Lbcatcher, I only wrote what nearly ever officer thinks and has to deal with on a daily basis. When you get down to it, if it wasn’t for the dedication to the job, there wouldn’t be any officers on the job with more than 2 years of service.

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  388. Because of that she is willing to overlook some mistakes they make, because in total they don’t make as many mistakes as compared to the right decisions and actions they make on a regular basis.

    I am so glad that you are just so perfect that you have never made a mistake in your life. Who do you think you are the Second Coming of Christ or something?

    #1 Agreed. That said, there are still some really crappy cops that need to find themselves a different line of work. There are good cops here on this site.. pissed off at me… but they have names and faces to put to who I am referring to. Every police force, has its people who are technically competent, competent in procedure and protocol, perfect cops… yet unworthy.

    #2 Yes. Thanks for noticing. But see the last two words above

    SteveG (794291)

  389. Peed off,
    You know all those freedoms you complain about Obama and the Supreme Court keep taking away? Who do you think enforces that loss of liberty, moron?

    You think cops are out there everyday just to make us safe? It’s really got nothing to do with the power they get to weild over us mundanes, does it? They aren’t routinely cleared of all wrongdoing time after time, are they?

    Nope, they do it all out of the pure goodness of their hearts, that how dare this non-cop mundane ever question their intentions. Shame on me. I denounce myself.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  390. More weed Ghost.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  391. @#382 Ghost

    “You know all those freedoms you complain about Obama and the Supreme Court keep taking away? Who do you think enforces that loss of liberty, moron?”

    The IRS.

    felipe (6100bc)

  392. You think cops are out there everyday just to make us safe? It’s really got nothing to do with the power they get to weild over us mundanes, does it? They aren’t routinely cleared of all wrongdoing time after time, are they?

    Nope, they do it all out of the pure goodness of their hearts, that how dare this non-cop mundane ever question their intentions. Shame on me. I denounce myself.

    Comment by Ghost (2d8874) — 7/6/2013 @ 1:37 pm

    No moron, they are not routinely cleared of wrongdoing time after time. Just because you stink something is wrongdoing does not make it so. There are plenty of officers that have been convicted for violation of civil rights and are serving time in the federal pen, some rightly, AND some unjustly too! Also tried and convicted by state courts too. Not to mention being sued civilly and losing. Fired off the job rightly and wrongly. I seem to remember some quite prominent cases recently of police being arrested, tried, and convicted for civil rights violations, murder, robbery, and corruption. O, but those don’t fit your little meme do they?

    You did have one thing right tho!

    Shame on me. I denounce myself.

    peedoffamerican (35b482)

  393. bad food … that officers experience

    you should try the tasty Grilled Sweet Chili Chicken Premium Wrap from McDonald’s

    it only has 360 calories and has lots of fresh vegetable goodness and it’s a perfect light meal to unwind with after a long shift of killing people’s puppy dogs

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  394. All the cops I know, myself included, that can make the comparison between shooting a suspect and a dog, felt really bad.

    About shooting the dog.

    Paul (86a55d)

  395. Ghost, you certainly told off Peedoffamerican. What power is it that you think cops wield over you “mundanes”? As for being cleared of wrongdoing time after time, I am afraid I will have to ask you to substantiate that. In my experience the opposite is true, too many complaints will get you sat down, suspended or fired.

    Feel free to question their intentions to your hearts content, no need to denounce yourself, pretty much nobody with any sense at all will listen to you anyway.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  396. Paul, that’s funny, I thought it but didn’t want to set off the cop haters on the thread.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  397. “Zaggs – Are you mentally challenged? Do you even understand Patterico’s post? Where did Patterico claim resisting arrest was a reason for shooting the dog?
    Derp!
    Comment by daleyrocks”

    Daley, to say it in a way you might understand. Ru lacka engrish skilz. Where does Patterico say it? But lets just do something simple and use Patterico’s own words:
    “Where people come down on this, in 99% of cases, will have everything to do with their general attitudes towards police, and nothing to do with the facts. I’m realistic; it’s the Internet and it’s human nature and I can’t fight it.
    For the other 1% of you, here is the context for what happened.”
    So right there according to Patterico we’re supposed to change our minds due to the information he puts forth. What information is that?
    “The dog’s owner is someone with a history of confrontations with police and resisting arrest. He has a lawsuit against the city and arguably had a motivation to start another confrontation that he could add to his lawsuit”.
    Um, Ok. So I guess then the video is supposed to show him arresting arrest? Oh wait, it doesn’t. But letsgo to the money shot:
    “Finally, police arrest him, and the dog jumps out of the car to defend his owner and is shot.
    I feel bad for the dog, that he had such an irresponsible owner.”
    So the context of the owner is the reason we should not be tooo harsh to the police according to Patterico. Except the context has jack to do with it. Its actually quite easy to know Patterico is full of it. If his music was so loud that the police cannot do their jobs: why 25 seconds in do 4 police enter the house?, and how does Patterico know what is said by the man? If its so loud the police cannot communicate, how does Patterico know what is being said? How does anyone. He should not be able to be heard if the music is just so darn loud.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  398. “You do realize that those two cops were not the only cops at the scene whose actions were impeded by the loud music. And that the guys filming said they couldn’t hear shit because of the music. You kinda left that part out, but hey, seems like you’re an advocate for an anti-cop point of view, so that distortion is to be expected I guess. (Just playing your rhetorical game here.)
    .Comment by Patterico”

    Here is a thought. Show where they were impeded. No, some spokesman after the fact saying they were impeded knowing they were caught on tape does not suffice. Show how they were so impeded that they thought 4 cops going into a house was a good idea. Or show how the suspect got away because of the loud music. Show how the police supposedly could not hear each other, yet you know exactly what the guy is saying in the video. See, your own post disproves your point.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  399. Daleyrocks, you asked if Zaggs was mentally challenged, if he understood the post, and where did Patterico claim resisting was the reason for shooting fido. Post 390 pretty well answered your question, yes, no and he has no clue.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  400. Being a cop, certainly in communities like Hawthorne (which already has a cruddy quality and culture about it that should make even a super idealistic person eventually super cynical), is tough, dangerous (natch) work, so employees in that part of the public sector do deserve more leeway than their counterparts at the local DMV office or local Planning Department. That being said, the cop caught on video did exhibit contradictory behavior, where on one hand he wasn’t logically fearful of the growling dog — where one would presumably back away from it, and maintain a safe distance — and on the other hand quickly fired some lead into the animal in a manner that strikes me as overly rash and nonchalant.

    Adrenalin was pumping and may have overcome the guy.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  401. What did this have to do with the guys history of resisting arrest? According to Patterico its a reason for shooting the dog.

    False. You are misrepresenting what I said. I don’t appreciate that.

    I’m happy to talk to people who want to discuss things fairly. But if you’re going to misrepresent my position, why would I bother to give you my time? Think about it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  402. This post is sadly typical of the Internet: it’s too hard to grapple with people’s actual arguments, so folks just twist the arguments into something easier to refute.

    That’s 99.9999% of the Internet. Is that 99.9999% of humanity? If so, that’s truly sad.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  403. Why firing a bad cop is damn near impossible

    One of Balko’s Raid Of The Day articles

    More than two links usually gets me thrown in the spam filter, but google can be your friend.

    Daley, I have plenty of weed. Thanks though.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  404. Ghost provides links to Radley Balko and claims to have plenty of weed.

    Is everyone else as shocked as I am?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  405. Maybe the cop ought to have shot the guy, and just arrested the dog.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  406. Zaggs,

    I know what the guy said because he shouts it, not loud enough to be heard on the tape, but loud enough that the people recording it and the woman right next to them could hear what he was shouting, and they repeat it.

    The cops should not have to shout in this situation.

    The guy can be arrested even if his attempts to impede the arrest did not result in the robber getting away.

    These are very basic and easy principles.

    Like every other cop hater here, you ignore the fact that the videotapers say they can’t hear anything because of the music; that the police were dealing with a violent situation; and that the guy has no right to interfere with the police.

    If I banned your IP, I would make it harder for people here to hear you — kind of like the dog owner’s music made it harder for the cops to do their jobs. And even though it’s not as important that people hear YOU as it was for these cops to be able to hear EACH OTHER — I bet that you would scream like a stuck pig if I banned your IP.

    You are entitled to have your drivel heard by all, but cops are not entitled to hear each other when apprehending a felony suspect. That is your position, and it is an absurd position indeed.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  407. i’m not a cop person but cop hater seems a little strong

    cops are like those forbiddingly large wasps nests you see in texas a lot

    you have to deal with them very carefully cause of they are prone to fits of venomous rage and you can’t reason with them

    the best you can do is hope they eat sensible meals cause a good diet can help with stress

    sensible meals like the Grilled Sweet Chili Chicken Premium Wrap from McDonald’s

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  408. Did Kevin R.C. O’Brien ever provide a link to substantiate his claim that the cops said they arrested the guy for filming, and then changed their story?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  409. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/6/2013 @ 2:48 pm

    Works for me ES….in fact, they should have shot him years ago.
    “Some people just deserve to be killed.”

    askeptic (2bb434)

  410. Maybe the cop ought to have shot the guy, and just arrested the dog.

    In general, we live in such an upside-down, ass-backwards world that growing numbers of people will feel greater regret and remorse about the death of an animal than the death of a human being. Or one more example of how a corrupted, unhinged form of compassion is distorting society.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  411. Ghost provides links to Radley Balko and claims to have plenty of weed.

    Is everyone else as shocked as I am?

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 7/6/2013 @ 2:44 pm

    It’s legal where I am, Pat. I’ve read many commenters here talk about what type of alcohol they like. Should we be shocked? And what’s wrong with Riggs at Reason? I know you and Balko had a disagreement over a drug raid gone bad, but is his reporting in this incident inaccurate? Is what you’re saying here any different than some noxious lib dismissing your information because “Faux News” happened to report it?

    Ghost (2d8874)

  412. Zaggs – Thanks for proving you’re a moron again today.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  413. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is an activity that you should engage in – particularly to excess.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  414. puppy killing is divisive it doesn’t bring people together and promote healing like barbecue or a 40 of schlitz malt liquor

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  415. Mr. Feets – Being a cop person is something what grows on you like a Grilled Sweet Chili Chicken Premium Wrap from McDonald’s once you stop assuming they are all future domestic terrorist killbots rejected by the USPS like a lot of the brain dead commenters on this thread, but maybe that’s just me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  416. Which is why I brought up the example of the commenters talking about alcohol. I have plenty does not mean that I use to excess.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  417. “I know what the guy said because he shouts it, not loud enough to be heard on the tape, but loud enough that the people recording it and the woman right next to them could hear what he was shouting, and they repeat it.

    The cops should not have to shout in this situation.”

    So the witnesses can hear a guy a quarter block away, yet the cops can’t hear each other even though they are further away from the car? Heck the closest the cops are to the guy is in the beginning, and they are the same distance as those recording. its also interesting that for a guy impeding their operations so much, no cop come towards him and in fact they all walk away.
    But I notice you dodge the bigger question. If he was impeding their operation so badly, why do 4 officers enter the house at 25 second in? Why risk the entry if their operations are so impeded?
    I also did not mention whether he could be arrested for impeding if the suspect got away. I asked to SHOW he was impeding operations. Drawing out your logic if someone pick-pockets someone at a lawful protest where people are probably shouting, the police say to be quiet and no one does, all the people at the protest could be arrested. I mean they would be making such a racket to impede the officers operation.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  418. Or if you’re a paranoid person doing a lot of illegal drugs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  419. all the same Mr. daley I’m a just continue to fly under the piggy pig radar and hope my tail doesn’t get ripped off when i go to land

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  420. uh oh skettios

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  421. Skettios is gay, happyfeet.

    nk (875f57)

  422. Lets try putting this “the cop was justified” logic another way. If a cop grabs for a deaf 120 lb kid, the kid lunges back, the cop backs off then the kid backs off, but the cop reaches for the kid again, the kid lunges again, is the officer justified in shooting the kid 5 times?

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  423. Ghost,

    Someone who comes in here calling Beldar’s argument “retarded” and says dogs are “target practice” for cops and utterly fails to confront the arguments concerning the noise interfering with the police’s ability to apprehend a violent felon — I am supposed to be surprised that person is a Radley Balko fan who smokes weed? It’s just amusing how predictably you fit the mold.

    But I’m perfectly fine discussing things with a Radley Balko fan who smokes weed — in the event that they are willing to be polite (don’t call Beldar’s arguments retarded) and make sensible arguments (don’t act like a Rottweiler has to be on top of you biting your throat before he can be considered dangerous). My disdain for you is based on your argument style and predates my learning the very predictable details regarding your favorite writers and drugs.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  424. #378 htom

    Notice the vicious Rottweiler in the video you posted wasn’t fazed much by that Taser which only put it down for 5 seconds, then what do you after that? Incredibly that clearly vicious dog was returned to it’s owner because it hasn’t maimed or killed anyone yet. Which is just plain idiotic and shows just how messed up we are. We fully lack even a hint of commonsense anymore, now why it’s called commonsense when it’s really not very common, I haven’t a clue. Was it much more common in times past?

    All this faux outrage about this incident (not so much here) but all around the web over a dog, seems like this country suffers from a major case of dog-idolatry. It’s just a dog, it’s not the end of the world.

    MSL (5f601f)

  425. Comment by Zaggs (6b7451) — 7/6/2013 @ 3:24 pm

    A dog is not a kid, moron.

    nk (875f57)

  426. they also taste uncommonly foul

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  427. So the witnesses can hear a guy a quarter block away

    Across the street

    yet the cops can’t hear each other even though they are further away from the car?

    The video does not show everything that happened.

    Heck the closest the cops are to the guy is in the beginning, and they are the same distance as those recording. its also interesting that for a guy impeding their operations so much, no cop come towards him and in fact they all walk away.

    The video does not show everything that happened.

    But I notice you dodge the bigger question. If he was impeding their operation so badly, why do 4 officers enter the house at 25 second in? Why risk the entry if their operations are so impeded?

    “The guy can be arrested even if his attempts to impede the arrest did not result in the robber getting away.”

    That was my statement, which did not dodge the question, which YOU are now dodging.

    You seem to have this crazy idea that if the cops were able to OVERCOME his attempts to impede their duties, he gets away with it. This makes no sense to anyone not totally and deeply biased against police to begin with, which you are.

    I also did not mention whether he could be arrested for impeding if the suspect got away. I asked to SHOW he was impeding operations. Drawing out your logic if someone pick-pockets someone at a lawful protest where people are probably shouting, the police say to be quiet and no one does, all the people at the protest could be arrested. I mean they would be making such a racket to impede the officers operation.

    That is an excellent analogy, with only these tweaks:

    1) This was not a lawful protest.

    2) The suspect was a felony robbery suspect and not a pickpocket.

    Points 1 and 2 make your analogy completely and utterly pointless. Which you cannot see because of your overwhelming bias.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  428. Also:

    The video does not show everything that happened.

    The video does not show everything that happened.

    The video does not show everything that happened.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  429. I’m turning up my music now, Zaggs.

    Sorry if it makes it harder for commenters to hear you.

    Prove to everyone here that your ability to communicate to them was impeded.

    Show it.

    Go ahead.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  430. TURN IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  431. Let the stuck pig sounds commence.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  432. My apologies, Patterico. I mean that sincerely. I was trying to make a joke off Jenteals use of the phrase, “that’s real retarded, sir.” I have to explain the joke, so I obviously failed in telling it. And if Beldar was offended I apologize to them as well.

    I don’t talk about the arrest because I don’t know how much the noise was interfering, and there may very well be a reason to arrest him. My problem is that besides briefly grabbing for the dogs leash, there was no attempt to taze, no attempt to subdue, no attempt outside of panic and execute.

    And for the record, on this issue Will Grigg is my favorite writer, not Balko. I like Balko as much as I like you, and in fact, visit your page way more frequently than radleys.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  433. Ghost,

    Apology accepted, on my part (I can’t speak for Beldar). Sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding. Thanks for the explanation.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  434. Not an issue at all

    If this wasn’t an issue, then why the need to change the procedure?

    Ghost (2d8874)

  435. That dog does not have the temperament of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, or HearWeGo.

    mg (31009b)

  436. 206

    … The fact is, the very thing that got him in cuffs are the very things that the average citizen does every day. The fact he did it on Purpose in front of the police? Why were the average citizen given a pass? Is the law only the law when it suits your purpose?

    I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that a police officer has the legal authority to give reasonable orders (like “turn down the radio”) to facilitate the performance of his duties and that a citizen is legally obligated to obey such orders and may indeed be arrested if he refuses. Is that wrong?

    That said a big part of police work is public relations but police culture sometimes doesn’t give this proper weight. There are times when it is appropriate for police officers to incur some risks (or overlook some offenses) to avoid public relations debacles like this.

    James B. Shearer (d50741)

  437. i’m not a cop person but cop hater seems a little strong

    cops are like those forbiddingly large wasps nests you see in texas a lot

    you have to deal with them very carefully cause of they are prone to fits of venomous rage and you can’t reason with them

    the best you can do is hope they eat sensible meals cause a good diet can help with stress

    sensible meals like the Grilled Sweet Chili Chicken Premium Wrap from McDonald’s

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/6/2013 @ 2:54 pm

    Going back to all your comments on this thread you sure as hell appear to be a cop hater. You had 6 of your usual silly comments in just the first 57 comments, all of then denigrating cops in general, none of them adding to the discussion.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  438. That said a big part of police work is public relations but police culture sometimes doesn’t give this proper weight. There are times when it is appropriate for police officers to incur some risks (or overlook some offenses) to avoid public relations debacles like this.

    That said, it would be moronic to suggest that this was one of those times.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  439. Lbcatcher,

    If Patterico.com were the old game show “Hollywood Squares,” mister happyfeet would be our Paul Lynde.

    Elephant Stone (00fc2d)

  440. @437

    FYI Jamie has been told numerous times that the guy was not arrested for doing what the average citizen does every day. He was arrested for interfering/obstructing (not turning down his radio, making it more difficult for the Officers involved in the arrest to communicate).

    Granted there are times to ignore idiots. This was not the time. This was a hot felony situation being made more difficult and dangerous. He knew he would be arrested and he knew why.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  441. Paul Lynde was funny, Happyfeet is not. I wish there was an ignore button.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  442. Lbcatcher,

    I agree with you that he’s not particularly funny. Perhaps I was being too subtle—it wasn’t the humor I was projecting onto happyfeet.

    Elephant Stone (00fc2d)

  443. 439

    That said, it would be moronic to suggest that this was one of those times.

    Wrong (or perhaps ignorant) maybe but not I think moronic.

    James B. Shearer (d50741)

  444. I thought that these days we were supposed to be having large dogs instead of firearms. So why are the police surprised when we’re following their advice?

    htom (412a17)

  445. Beldar, I don’t entirely agree with this.

    The owner should have secured the dog — either inside the car, or by tying off the leash to something (or perhaps handing it to a friend whom the dog knew and who could be counted on to keep the dog in control). No one but the owner had that responsibility, and probably no one but the owner could have discharged it in a way that would keep the dog, and everyone around the dog, safe.

    The issue I have with it is I see it as a police responsibility to take control of the scene when they’re effecting an arrest.

    Sure, the owner shouldn’t have taken the dog to this crime scene. And he should have secured the dog. But once the officers made the decision to arrest a man with a dog they shouldered some responsibility for the fate of the dog.

    When the suspect walks toward the police after putting the dog in the car he is clearly complying with their orders. I see it as no different than if they had ordered him to drop the leash and walk toward them. They could see the dog was unsecured and by demanding immediate compliance from the suspect they did not allow him to secure the dog.

    This is how I see this as comparable to the police shooting the dogs in a Maryland mayor’s home, or a border collie in a driveway in Austin.

    When the police put dog owners in a position where they can’t secure their dogs then the police have created a situation that becomes their responsibility.

    This is the contest I was referring to. I expect criminals to behave irresponsibly. But in these dog shooting incidents police irresponsibility is also to blame.

    Frankly, the police are out of control. And judging by the reactions of the law enforcement types they won’t even acknowledge that they’re out of control let alone come up with a plan to deal with a problem they refuse to acknowledge even exists. So it’s up to the citizenry to sue them until they’re back in control. I wish I could find the article but a Tennessee couple who were mistaken as robbery suspects successfully sued a city (I believe it was Nashville) when the officer shot their dog. Similar to this case the officer had them out of their vehicle and was holding them at gunpoint when the dog got out of the car through an open window. As we see on the videotape her, the officer did not permit them to secure their dog, thus bearing responsibility for creating the situation. Not the couple.

    It happens with depressing regularity. Officer goes to wrong address and shoots dog. There was even a case in Eldorado, Ill, last year when an officer went inside the gated yard of the wrong house and shot a German Shepherd on a chain. The dog couldn’t even get at the Officer if he had remained beyond reach, but he claimed to be in fear for his life and shot the dog who couldn’t have reached him.

    In the Tennessee case the city settled for $77k and agreed to retrain its force to deal with dogs. That training is available, and since it is and police agencies rarely employ it until they’re staring down both barrels of a lawsuit they know they’re going to lose then I completely discount the notion that they don’t want to shoot dogs.

    In another case last year a Chicago cop shot a 7 month old miniature bull terrier puppy in the owner’s front yard as he was writing a parking ticket. Then he reholstered his weapon and calmly proceeded to finish writing out the ticket. Eyewitnesses said he shot the dog like it was nothing. I don’t know if he enjoyed it, but he clearly wasn’t bothered in the least.

    One could argue that the family whose dog was shot was biased in what they said about their pup when talking to the press, but some facts stand out since they didn’t come from the family. Eyewitnesses to the shooting said the pup never threatened the officer; he was acting playful and wagging his tail. Second, the fact there were so many eyewitnesses underscores why the neighbors were upset at the police for more than just shooting the puppy. It was a busy street and the officer chose to deal with a non-life threatening situation by shooting his handgun where any number of people could have been injured had he missed. Third, the Chicago PD retaliated against the family for going to the media by returning to their home to issue a citation for the dog being off its leash 3 days later. The local Fox affiliate was there when the police showed up demanding to know why the family went to the press.

    Since I can’t find the Tennessee report his article will have to do.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/26/police-kill-dog-shoot-owner-as-he-attemp

    I figured it was only a matter of time before a police officer drawing down on Fido triggered a protective reaction. And so it came to pass in Salem, Oregon.

    This time, Steven Deleon only took a bullet in the foot when he jumped in, unsuccessfully, to save his “pit bull” (and let me note here that the term “pit bull” seems to be used by officials less as a technical breed name than as a description of any dog they shoot). According to the Salem News:

    …The Statesman-Journal reports that “officers had gone to the address to look for a wanted person. Officers Darren Buchholz and Travis Brossard were in the residence speaking with people when they were attacked by the pit bull.” This means that the dog’s owners were there in the room with the officers when the dog “attacked” them. Rather than let the owners deal with the dog, Officer Darren Buchholz drew his weapon in the midst of those owners and ended up shooting one of them as well as killing the dog.

    Admittedly, there’s a certain survival-instinct deficit in jumping in front of a firearm that’s been drawn in anger. But that’s the sort of thing that people do for their loved ones. I honestly don’t know if I would do that for one of my dogs, though I suspect I would. I would certainly do it for my wife or son. I’m not surprised that somebody, on the spot, tried to save his pet and took a bullet for his troubles.

    …Perhaps realizing that matters canine and law-enforcement-ish have slipped out of hand, the Forth Worth, Texas, police department is retraining its officers to deal with dogs in a less permanent fashion. From KHOU:

    Trainer Jim Osorio asks for a show of hands in the police auditorium. “How many people here think they can handle a dog encounter without lethal force? I think all of you can,” he said.

    Osorio, a former cop, tells them there are dogs in about one in three households — nearly 80 million in all. He says officers shoot about 250,000 dogs a year… often needlessly.

    “I’m going to train them whatever they carry can be used on an animal,” Osario explained. “Clipboard, flare… whatever.”

    The Fort Worth training comes after police shot a Border Collie belonging to Mark and Cindy Boling. The Bolings apparently extracted the new training regimen as a condition of not suing over the video-recorded incident, which occurred when officers mistakenly arrived at their door. That video is played during the classes.

    The dog-shooting epidemic in Fort Worth had gotten so out of hand that I know people who live there who installed video cameras on their property precisely to have evidence against the police when, not if, the cops shot their dog. I don’t know the Bolings but wouldn’t be surprised if their system that captured this on video was installed precisely for that purpose. I know people in other localities who’ve done the same thing for the same reason.

    They will say the cameras also provide additional security over and above their other security systems such as alarms, but the driving factor that put them over the top and compelled them to buy a surveillance system is the police themselves. When people install security cameras becuase they’ve come to the conclusion that the police are a more likely threat than burglars the police have a problem. Whether they want to admit it or not.

    Just to head off the speculation, I am not talking about people with criminal histories. It’s simply a reaction to the wider problem of an increasingly militarized police that views everyone and everything as a threat.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  446. This article is about 8 years old, but it’s applicable.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/12/local/me-dogs12

    One out of every four times Los Angeles police officers intentionally fired their guns during the last 20 years, the target was not a man; it was man’s best friend.

    …Since 1985, police have shot at more than 465 dogs, killing at least 200 and wounding at least 140, according to incident reports.

    I rarely agree with anyone with the HSUS but I agree wholeheartedly with this guy.

    Randall Lockwood, a psychologist and animal behaviorist with the Humane Society of the United States who has worked with police agencies on issues relating to dogs, said most officers are not adequately trained to handle confrontations with aggressive dogs. Lockwood said he thought the number of dogs shot at by LAPD officers was “surprisingly high.”

    “Police departments throughout the country need to develop better training so officers can more accurately assess which dogs are life-threatening and dangerous and which ones are not,” Lockwood said.

    “Our opinion is that often, lethal use of force is not required or justified,” he said. “In many cases, a shooting is a knee-jerk reaction by an officer not familiar with dogs. We have to acknowledge that there are situations where they have to shoot a dog, but we feel that’s relatively rare.”

    Growling dogs baring sharp teeth can present frightening situations for police officers, officials said. And if dogs charge at officers, sometimes there is little they can do but shoot to protect themselves, they said.

    The fact the police so often refuse to train to do anything other than shoot dogs until forced to do so by a settlement or to head off a lawsuit they know they’re going to lose speaks volumes.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  447. if we armed the post office we could put paid to the canine menace for good

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  448. Or if we had more Chinese restaurants.

    nk (875f57)

  449. we’ll call that plan c

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  450. whoa

    someone shot a border collie?

    I’m trying to think of a more cowardly act

    all I got is McCain’s entire 2008 campaign

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  451. Steve, didn’t you say in an earlier comment that you hunt? That means that you spend thousands of dollars and travel considerable distances, some of it on foot through rough terrain, to kill an animal, minding its own business in its own habitat, for fun. Now I don’t hate Fudds, and I won’t be joining PETA at the picket line, but it seems to me that you are a mite inconsistent. Shooting a deer or a bear or a rabbit to show off your shooting skills is ok, but shooting a dog to protect a human (even if it’s only one dressed in blue), is not?

    nk (875f57)

  452. Maybe I do hate Fudds a little. I did not shed a single tear when Cheney shot Whittington. I was kind of sorry that Whittington did not shoot back. Farm hunting sickens me.

    nk (875f57)

  453. I followed a few more links at Reason to round out the picture of just how large and toxic the problem of police shooting dogs when they don’t have to.

    The first is that the police never make mistakes.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/17/all-police-shootings-of-dogs-have-been-j

    ButScott Noll of KHOU did something a bit different by asking the Houston Police Department how often its officers felt compelled to shoot dogs, and what the outcome was in those cases. The answer? Well, Houston cops shoot a lot of dogs, and they never make mistakes.

    From KHOU:

    In fact, the department said it has ruled all 187 officer-involved shootings of dogs since January 1, 2010 as justified.

    According to departmental records, 121 of those dogs died.

    HPD declined to talk about the cases on camera, citing a pending lawsuit arising from one of the shootings.

    …All of the cases were justified? KHOU quotes Sgt. Joseph Guerra of the Precinct 6 Constable’s Department expressing a little skepticism of the clean bill of health the department and its neighbors give themselves. “We need to get those officers involved in some mandated training in how to defend before going to deadly force,” says Guerra, who demonstrates non-lethal techniques for distracting dogs.

    That is they never to admit to wrongfully shooting a dog until they’re about to lose a lawsuit. Then they’ll admit to the possibility they make mistakes and agree to training to correct those mistakes as part of the settlement.

    Obviously not everyone within the police community is buying the official line. And of course, almost nobody outside the police buys for a second that officers are always justified when they shoot dogs simply because their own internal investigations always side with their own officers, and this second article shows why.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/cops-shoot-german-shepherd-in-front-yard

    Cops Shoot German Shepherd in Front Yard, Tell Story Contradicted by Security Camera

    Cops in El Monte, California shot Kiki, a German shepherd, after entering a front yard in the course of investigating, apparently, a runaway teenager; they were visiting the home on an appointment, an hour late. Police say procedures were followed. Via the San Gabriel Valley Tribune:

    “They did go up to the front (gate),” the captain [Dan Buehler] said. “There was a beware of dog sign of the gate. They did what we always do as police officers. They shook the gate. They didn’t see any dogs.”

    “They looked for any signs of dogs — chew toys, dog mess, what have you,” Buehler said, adding that they entered the yard after not seeing anything indicating a dog was present.

    “They walked up to the porch. They rang the doorbell. They knocked on the door. That’s when the first dog came around the house,” he said.

    But video captured by the security camera at the home (you can watch it below) don’t show the police officers doing anything of the sort before entering through the gate.

    That pesky security system the officers didn’t know was there caught them in their lies.

    This is why the people I know who installed security cameras did so. We increasingly expect the police to shoot dogs more as a matter of convenience than necessity, lie about it, and be cleared of any wrongdoing by an internal whitewash.

    The only way to combat the police misconduct is to get it on camera.

    It doesn’t speak well of the authorities that twelve states have made it a felony to record the police without their permission as a result.

    Back to the first article:

    And yes, police shootings of dogs have been a sufficient trend to elicit a formal report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services last summer. The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters pointed out that “A recent poll revealed that approximately 53.5 percent of owners consider their dogs family members, another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets, and less than 1.5 percent consider them mere property” on the way to emphasizing that Americans like their dogs and so killing them as a matter of casusl policy upsets people. The report also emphasized that serious dog bites are rare, and no particular breed is especially dangerous, so police have little reason to feel fear out of hand when encountering your average canine. The report even offers some examples for interpreting doggy body language. It ultimately concludes that, dogs being an important part of American life, police might consider taking the time to learn how to deal with them.

    I really don’t see how I’m engaging in gratuitous police bashing. I’m agreeing with cops like Sgt. Garza, who’s quoted in one of the articles. Or the officer I know on the Dallas PD who was trained to respond to animal escapes at the Dallas Zoo and was on the team that shot Jabari. He didn’t volunteer for that duty because he was looking forward to going on a safari at the zoo. He didn’t like shooting the gorilla, I know that.

    I mean, I’m not saying anything the DoJ hasn’t said. I know, I know, it’s Eric Holder’s DoJ and I almost never have anything good to say about it. But the conclusions of this report are so obvious and sensible I don’t see how anyone can argue with it.

    There are ways to deal with dogs without simply resorting to shooting them, there are people who can train the police in those techniques, do train some police in those techniques, and there’s really no excuse for any police officer not being taught those techniques. As stated in the DoJ report:

    Shooting a dog should always be the option of last resort. The safety of fellow officers and bystanders is put at risk in such situations, and when a law enforcement officer shoots a dog that does not constitute a serious threat, community trust is eroded and the department is opened to potential lawsuits and other legal action.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  454. you’ll have better luck teaching the dogs to learn how to deal with the trigger-happy piggy boys I think

    they pick stuff up a lot quicker

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  455. then again at some point natural selection is gonna kick in and you’re gonna have a hard time finding a dog what doesn’t roll over and whimper when it encounters the popo

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  456. That’s how dogs got to be pets instead of food. Our caveman ancestors would spear mama and bring the pups back alive for later. The ones that learned to be cute and cuddly didn’t get eaten right away and the ones that learned to help hunt their relatives got a pat on the head.

    nk (875f57)

  457. nk, they (the Cheney party) weren’t shooting on a “farm”, but a “ranch”.
    In TX, that’s a big distinction.
    Farms are measured in acres, ranches are measured in sections.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  458. I misphrased that I think, askeptic. I meant a place where birds and animals are raised and released for hunting.

    nk (875f57)

  459. My understanding is that they were hunting birds in the wild.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  460. nk, I shoot deer, rabbits, pigs, moose, elk, quail, pheasant, ducks, geese, and doves to show off my cooking skills. Not my shooting skills.

    Sure, if I’m going to eat it I’ll kill it. Or if somebody is going to eat it if I’m not going to do so personally. I gave a caribou once to an Indian village in Alaska. I gave some sea ducks to a food bank in Maryland. And I shot a crop raiding elephant and gave it to the villagers whose food supply for the next year and been destroyed by it.

    I plan on doing more of that as there are food banks that exist just to fill prescriptions. Wild game is so healthy, healthier than a lot of farmed fish, that doctors will prescribe venison for heart patients.

    If I or someone else were threatened or my animals or a neighbor’s were threatened I’d shoot a dog or any other animal. I once had to shoot a pit bull that attacked a neighbor’s donkey. Unfortunately I was too late and the donkey had to be put down.

    I’d shoot a black bear. Not because I’m racist but because black bear meat is actually good as opposed to grizzly/brown bear meat which not even the state of Alaska requires you to try and salvage.

    (as an aside not all black bears are black as this picture from Vancouver shows: http://www.notempire.com/images/uploads/Great-Bear-RF.jpg)

    But I don’t like killing animals unless it’s necessary. That’s why I mentioned that I carry OC spray when I hunt in Alaska in my first comment on this thread. I really don’t want to shoot a griz or a brown bear. (Unless I’m hunting one on purpose, which will be a once in a lifetime deal if it ever happens.) If I can deal with the situation without resorting to my rifle then that’s what I’m going to do.

    And consequently I don’t understand why cops don’t prepare to do the same. The only reason according to the LAPD to shoot a dog is the same reason for shooting a human being. The dog poses an immediate danger to the officer or someone else. But the fact is they set an awfully low bar.

    I suppose I would be inconsistent if I said that officers are never justified in shooting dogs, but I haven’t said that. Of course there’ll be times when it’s justified. I’ve done so myself once. As a matter of fact if I’m hunting on a farmer or rancher’s property and I see free-roaming dogs harassing their stock I’ll shoot them every time. (Although where I hunt the strychnine traps the ranchers set out for coyotes get any free-ranging or feral dog before I set eyes on them.)

    The fact is the police aren’t shooting only feral dogs or shooting dogs that obviously belong to someone as a last resort. Increasingly it’s the first resort, and that needs to stop.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  461. I’d guess they were doing the kind of hunting what’s very much like golf for people with heart problems what don’t have the stamina for golf

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  462. Maybe I do hate Fudds a little. I did not shed a single tear when Cheney shot Whittington. I was kind of sorry that Whittington did not shoot back. Farm hunting sickens me.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 7/6/2013 @ 6:56 pm

    Even though I like Cheney, that was funny, I don’t care who you are!

    peedoffamerican (127915)

  463. I read that it was the Armstrong Ranch and they had a shooting line with beaters to flush out the quail. Whittington got ahead of the shooting line. It sounded like trap shooting with living targets. I presume that it is stocked. I won’t insist.

    nk (875f57)

  464. Even though I like Cheney, that was funny, I don’t care who you are!

    Comment by peedoffamerican (127915) — 7/6/2013 @ 7:36 pm

    Cheney did get a boost in his popularity rating when it came out that Whittington was a lawyer.

    nk (875f57)

  465. Well, the Brits used beaters both in India and Africa – I doubt that those were “stocked” situations.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  466. if you order something in which “quail egg” is involved that means they’re openly screwing you on portion size is what that means

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  467. So they were out there beating the bushes until Cheney got tired of beating around the bush and shot straight from the hip?

    happyfeet, quail themselves are the smallest chickens I’ve ever had served. If you’re ever in Chicago, we’ll hit a Persian restaurant for some.

    nk (875f57)

  468. i would like that

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  469. This thread has gone to teh dogs!

    Colonel Haiku (93c9e1)

  470. Also Vietnamese restaurants serve delicious ones.

    narciso (3fec35)

  471. Quails I should specify.

    narciso (3fec35)

  472. 453. Maybe I do hate Fudds a little. I did not shed a single tear when Cheney shot Whittington. I was kind of sorry that Whittington did not shoot back. Farm hunting sickens me.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 7/6/2013 @ 6:56 pm

    It depends on the size of the farm. I only hunted twice on fenced properties, and my only defense is I didn’t understand when I bid on the hunts at the Dallas Safari Club that the properties in question were fenced. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, and had I researched the countries in which I hunted I’d have known that by law they had to be fenced.

    The smallest was in New Zealand. It was only 8,000 acres but that figure didn’t do it justice. If you took a picture from overhead and did the math the flat surface inside the fence in the picture would come out to that amount of acreage. But the reality was it wasn’t close to flat. It was all vertical. The mountains were like gigantic dragon’s teeth. The deer wouldn’t be that far away as the crow flies, but they could be an afternoon’s climb away up or down.

    The place in Namibia was so huge it was ridiculous to call it a hunting farm. Although that’s what the Germans who settled that place call that kind of property. It was a half hour drive from his house to the front gate of his property. And his house was a lot closer to the front gate than it was to the center of the property. We got there at night so I couldn’t really get a feel for how large it was, but the day we were flying out we left in the late morning. After driving a half an hour to the front gate, we turned and drove down a main road for an hour before heading toward South Africa. During the entire hour everything to the right of the car was his property. I don’t know how many miles of his property fronted that road because we turned onto a different road before we reached the end of his fenceline. But we drove along that edge of his property for an entire hour at about 90km/hr.

    If you threw a fence around the state of Rhode Island and called it a hunting ranch it may have approached the size of this place.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  473. Thanks, narciso. Heh!

    nk (875f57)

  474. I should probably add that had we turned left instead of right we’d have had to go quite a few miles in that direction, too, before everything on the left side of the car stopped belonging to him.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  475. pronoun trouble causes complications on occasions,

    narciso (3fec35)

  476. 467. if you order something in which “quail egg” is involved that means they’re openly screwing you on portion size is what that means

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/6/2013 @ 7:41 pm

    Not if it’s a Japanese place. That’s really what you’re supposed to use.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  477. oh. I didn’t think of that.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  478. Unless you’re under the impression that the Japanese generally screw you on portion size. Which may well be the case as that’s why a lot of older Japanese men are only like four feet tall.

    They didn’t get a lot to eat during or immediately after the war. They definitely got screwed on portion size.

    Which is why if they got a quail egg they felt lucky.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  479. Quails I should specify.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/6/2013 @ 8:41 pm

    Serve up dog too, you just have to be Viet Namese to order it, and is only served in back dining room out of sight of general public. Shhhhh, tell no one I told you.

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  480. at my ramen place they do chicken eggs and the portions are all you could ask for

    they call them “flavored eggs”

    it’s kind of a thing, this ramen place if you’re an aficionado of the japanese foozles you should check them out they’ve been expanding pretty quick to new cities

    http://jinya-ramenbar.com/home.html

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  481. Yeah, it isn’t like the Japanese don’t eat regular eggs. My favorite Japanese dishes with egg have to be Sukiyaki and Katsudon. Although no one does Sukiyaki right in this country because you’re supposed to dip whatever’s cooing in the pot (sukiyaki is like a Japanese hobo stew; Japanese farmers would put whatever meat and vegetables they gathered up by midday in a shovel and cook it over a fire in the field) in a raw blended egg in your bowl before eating it.

    Now I’m getting hungry. If it weren’t close to midnight I’d head out and kill something to eat.

    I think I have some leftovers.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  482. Chicken eggs are just too big to use on Sushi.

    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=japanese+cuisine+quail+eggs&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=26255C5B7E043E8F0E1E4144E7F331F2B82B1455&selectedIndex=20

    You’ve got to take that into consideration.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  483. another day passes into memory and i’ve yet to record my first kill

    i saw several dogs today

    but

    it just didn’t feel right

    i want my first time to be special

    or is that just a rationalization of my own cowardice?

    these thoughts torment me

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  484. tobiko is about the only sushi i genuinely crave anymore

    mostly I’m just kind of over it

    i think where i live we have an extraordinarily high number of sushi restaurants per capita

    so it just got old i think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  485. Don’t brood about how long you’ve let some dog live; take comfort, instead, in how long the right one, once you find it eventually, will be dead.

    nk (875f57)

  486. that is wise thank you

    if/when I ever become a cop I want you as my partner

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  487. Maybe you should start out by shooting coyotes as the “gateway canine.”

    A good way to shoot coyotes is to put out a big stuffed Snoopy doll and then hide in the bushes. ‘Yotes hate it when other canines intrude on their territory. All canines do. That’s why wolves kill coyotes, and coyotes kill foxes.

    So if Chris Christie and Barack Obama let you tag along on their next date on the Jersey boardwalk and you win a Snoopy doll then that, along with the ability to purse your lips and make small dying animal squeals, will put you on the path to killing coyotes.

    It’s not a Snoopy doll but it illustrates the concept.

    http://buckingtheodds.com/videos/coyote-hunting-with-the-mojo-puppy-predator-decoy/

    You woudn’t let Wile. E. Coyote attack Snoopy, would you Mr. Feets?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  488. Sushi actually refers to the rice. Learn to make your own, buy some pickled ginger and get real wasabi if you can find it, otherwise the green radish paste is OK. Good fresh high grade tuna is widely available and there are many other excellent fish, shellfish, and other tasty ocean creatures that will do nicely.

    For those who like rolls, get some dried seaweed and a reed mat. You can do wonders with a cucumber, an avacado, and some crab or lobster.

    It takes about an hour and you’ll be up to speed once you get the short-grain rice part down pat.

    ropelight (0a59a0)

  489. Ironically anyone who has been fishing has seen that people have far less concern for those fish flopping all around the deck. Yeah, sometimes you club them but not because we are humane, but because all that flopping around for an hour or so gets rather irritating.

    MSL (5f601f)

  490. Sushi actually refers to the rice.

    Yes, it’s actually a contraction of two words that mean vinegared rice.

    “Suu” means vinegar, and “meshi” means a meal but in Japan that means rice. Suumeshi over time became known as sushi.

    Unfortunately some idiot judge couldn’t be educated on that fact. Some guy sued a Japanese restaurant because they advertised all you could eat sushi, and because he was a diabetic or something he couldn’t eat the rice. Just the raw fish.

    In Japan that’s called Sashimi. Not Sushi. The guy sued and won because the idiot judge wouldn’t allow the concept that sushi means the rice to take up any space between his ears.

    It may seem a minor point but it’s part of the reason I hold this nation’s legal culture in disdain.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  491. Does anyone have any statistics on how many police offers have been killed or seriously wounded by dogs, perhaps on a year by year basis? The instant case aside, I am concerned at the idea of someone discharging a gun as a first resort, especially in residential areas. Had a naked man come at that officer with bare hands, would the officer have drawn and fired or attempted to yell, use a Taser, pepper spray, baton, or just tried to “dog-pile” with his fellow officers? Humans can push and bite, but we expect as a society for officers to resort to lethal force once other reasonable options have been exhausted.

    Police wear body armor, which citizens in some states are forbidden from owning. Police carry batons, pepper spray, and Tasers, which citizens in many states are forbidden from carrying. They also carry firearms, which citizens are often forbidden from discharging unless they have made an attempt to flee the scene. The officers gave an excuse that they had to protect the handcuffed owner, yet police dogs are often sent to bite unarmed suspects, and it is not generally believed to be something that will kill them.

    Yell, throw your arm up, act like an ADULT, and treat the discharge of a firearm in someone’s house or on a public street as a grave decision, even if an animal that someone lives and sleeps and entrusts their children with on a daily basis happens to be making noise.

    Everyone has visited a house where someone’s dog jumps up and puts its paws on you at some point in their lives. The expected reaction is someone says “get DOWN” or ignores the dog. I’ve never walked into someone’s house, had their dog run at me, and decided to just shoot it.

    Paul (f1cbd5)

  492. Steve: Domo alligator Tachikawa golfball.

    ropelight (0a59a0)

  493. Police wear body armor, which citizens in some states are forbidden from owning. Police carry batons, pepper spray, and Tasers, which citizens in many states are forbidden from carrying. They also carry firearms, which citizens are often forbidden from discharging unless they have made an attempt to flee the scene. The officers gave an excuse that they had to protect the handcuffed owner, yet police dogs are often sent to bite unarmed suspects, and it is not generally believed to be something that will kill them.

    Paul, you bring up excellent points. The rest of the populace has to deal with the very dogs the police insist they have to shoot on a fairly regular basis.

    It should come as no surprise to the police who insist all these shootings are necessary that the public isn’t buying it. When it comes to dealing with dogs, the police aren’t a breed apart.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  494. Tachikawa, as in near that former AFB, that was active during the Vietnam conflict.

    narciso (3fec35)

  495. Yokota AFB is still active as far as I know. It’s in Tachikawa.

    Other than that I’m at a loss for cracking the code.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  496. http://www.yokotapanthers.com/id20.html

    The Official Website of the Yokota High School Alumni Association

    Tachikawa Air Base Photos

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  497. A friend of mine was stationed there in the early 60s, but he was TDyed to Tan Son Nhut, later in his tour.

    narciso (3fec35)

  498. 493. Steve: Domo alligator Tachikawa golfball.

    Comment by ropelight (0a59a0) — 7/6/2013 @ 10:28 pm

    I never played golf in Tachikawa. Also known as Tama hills. I camped there once as a “team building” exercise with our JMSDF counterparts.

    The real team building started when we had to rescue some our Japanese friends who stumbled and fell into the campfire as the night wore on. They were drinking something called Awamori which is apparently Okinawan for Hooch or White Lightning.

    Fortunately just like every Marine is a rifleman every Sailor is a firefighter and we were able to douse the flames and continue with the Asahi with no loss of life.

    It was touch and go; had one of those guys exhaled when he fell into the firepit we’d have all been toast.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  499. “Increasingly it’s the first resort, and that needs to stop.”

    Steve57 – I did not see any evidence that dog shootings by police are increasing in the links you provided in spite of your claims of it being fact. Was there something I missed? The COPS study made the same assertion but did not provide any support for it either.

    I wonder whether people believe such incidents are on the rise because of the media’s fascination with spotlighting perceived police misdeeds and misuse of guns. Everybody has provided widely publicized examples of incidents in this thread rather than actual data documenting trends.

    Also, claiming the Hawthorne incident was shoot first is a blatant misrepresentation when the officers first attempted to restrain the animal by grabbing its leash.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  500. “”So the witnesses can hear a guy a quarter block away””

    “Across the street”

    Is Rosby on the curb? No. Are the people recording on the curb? No. Therefore are they across the street from each other? No. I know, its that logic thing again.

    “”yet the cops can’t hear each other even though they are further away from the car?””

    “The video does not show everything that happened.”

    Ah yes, the easy out. So what else is happening? Did I miss Rosby backing up a semi full of stereo equipment and blasting it at 11? Maybe I missed him deploying a device that scramble police radios in a 5 block radius. Maybe I missed him swallowing the red pill and he was really the robbery suspect in the Matrix.

    “”Heck the closest the cops are to the guy is in the beginning, and they are the same distance as those recording. its also interesting that for a guy impeding their operations so much, no cop come towards him and in fact they all walk away.””

    “The video does not show everything that happened.”

    Video also doesn’t show that Rosby was told to turn down the radio either. Even if he had been, how could he have heard the police telling him to do so. I mean, his radio was….just…so…darn…loud.

    “”But I notice you dodge the bigger question. If he was impeding their operation so badly, why do 4 officers enter the house at 25 second in? Why risk the entry if their operations are so impeded?””

    “The guy can be arrested even if his attempts to impede the arrest did not result in the robber getting away.”

    So can you be arrested for speeding in a 25 mph zone while traveling at 20mph simply because you jam on the gas? I mean your actions don’t result in actual speeding, but I suppose you could still be arrested for speeding.

    “That was my statement, which did not dodge the question, which YOU are now dodging.”

    Since you still have not shown any actual impeding of the operations, yes you’re dodging. The police are not shouting, they are moving along. Heck they’re not even shouting at Rosby before they arrest him. Quite frankly if a loud radio can disrupt operations of at least 5 cop cars and a SWAT vehicle, the Hawthorne PD may be better off disbanding than attempting to do anything else. I mean just imagine what a mean stare will do to them!

    “You seem to have this crazy idea that if the cops were able to OVERCOME his attempts to impede their duties, he gets away with it. This makes no sense to anyone not totally and deeply biased against police to begin with, which you are.”

    How is a loud radio an attempt to impede? Seriously, if thats how loud his radio was before he stopped (remember “the video does not show everything”), how is he actively trying to impede anything? If it was such an impediment, why is a cop not already over with Rosby waiting for him to turn it down. Its not until Rosby has walked around and taken pictures that they bother with him.

    “”I also did not mention whether he could be arrested for impeding if the suspect got away. I asked to SHOW he was impeding operations. Drawing out your logic if someone pick-pockets someone at a lawful protest where people are probably shouting, the police say to be quiet and no one does, all the people at the protest could be arrested. I mean they would be making such a racket to impede the officers operation. But here is the money question. How could he be impeding an operation that was already over? From the Hawthorne PD’s press release:
    “Once all parties to the original robbery incident were apprehended, two officers approached this suspect to address the violation(s) of law.”.
    Thats right kids. Those dangerous robbery suspects that Rosby was trying to allow to get away, were already in custody not long after the video starts. In fact I bet its about 30 to 35 seconds in after the 4 cops enter the house. Funny how that press release doesn’t make it into the “context” of the post.

    Points 1 and 2 make your analogy completely and utterly pointless. Which you cannot see because of your overwhelming bias.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  501. Just to save all from having to read a long post. This is from the Hawthrone PD’s own press release on the issue.
    “Once all parties to the original robbery incident were apprehended, two officers approached this suspect to address the violation(s) of law.”
    So AFTER the suspects are in police custody, they decide to arrest someone for interfering. The suspects are in custody about 3 minutes before the dog is murdered. Guess they couldn’t hear which bar to go to to celebrate.

    Zaggs (6b7451)

  502. Zaggs is saying something, but I can’t hear him over my music.

    Must not have been important.

    Zaggs, show that I am impeding your communication.

    Patterico (a2fd5b)

  503. 500. …Also, claiming the Hawthorne incident was shoot first is a blatant misrepresentation when the officers first attempted to restrain the animal by grabbing its leash.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/6/2013 @ 11:33 pm

    I don’t believe I’ve ever claimed the cops in the video didn’t want to do right by the dog. Just that they didn’t know how. Which is why I keep harping on this as a training issue.

    Although I’m compelled to admit that to the degree the police establishment resists changing its ways, to that degree it dislikes dogs.

    But I don’t think the rank and file police officer dislikes dogs.

    Yes, grabbing for the leash indicates to the rest of us they didn’t mean the dog harm. I don’t believe these officers did mean the dog harm, not for an instant. It was also the wrong thing to do as far as the dog was concerned. They had already upended this dog’s apple cart. A lot of quick hand movements flashing before the dog’s face were unlikely to make the situation better.

    I also realize there may appear to be contradictions between the positions I hold. I’m prepared to deal with those as well. I grew up a hunter in Kali, for Chrissakes. It won’t be the first time I’ll have to defend myself against some over inflamed charge of hypocrisy.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  504. I wouldn’t subject my dogs to music that loud.
    It’s cruel.i’d never subject dogs, goats, spitting llamas or even an ostrich to a cop either. It’s cruel.

    Hopefully no stupid dogooder decides to get the idiot a new 8 week old rottweiler puppy so he can get that one killed too.

    And if you are going to antagonize the police be more subtle.
    Or if you want them to really hate you, be inventive. Consider taking the camera into places that give cops free or 1/2 off of food (stupidly… they make more money than most of the people they police and it is galling to be taking in less than 40K a year and stand in line behind a fat assed cop that makes twice that and then see his overfed self get 1/2 off or free) but so go into those places and video cops getting 1/2 off of their meal.
    You’ll get your ass kicked, but you’ll win a big settlement. Or get PETA and Anonymous to give you money
    Use the settlement money to rent one of those quiet hover drones and use it to catch them drinking on the job, using hookers, sleeping etc.
    Find a good PI to follow a few who are out on disability or injury and catch them cheating the system.
    I know a former LA area cop who does that for the insurance underwriters.
    I know a former Vernon PD guy. who left in disgrace (redundant) but he does know quite a bag of dirty cop tricks and he has an ax to grind, sometimes works with the above guy.
    Both of them were construction buddies of mine, so there are guys are out there.
    Hell, my other LV area former Nevada gaming cop co-worker now does private work and doesn’t care who it is if they are dirty.
    Of the three above, the ex Vernon cop tells the most frighteningly hilarious stories… and boy did he lose a great gig over banging some Lt’s dispatcher/daughter while on the job… umm I mean on his personal time.

    The two straightest cops I know are my K9 buddy, who is annoyingly LDS straight and my ex teammate now DEA agent who is a salt of the earth church going dude who considers me his stupidest friend… ever. Which is why he keeps me around, for the balance I so aptly and graciously am able to provide.
    My cousin out in greater Phoenix who is up there now in some Arizona SO gave me a card with a number CI’s call in on in case I do something dumber than usual out in AZ. Using it would probably do nothing for me and ruin him, so I’ll just call his wife and tell him I need a bail bondsman and a lawyer all the judges like and the DDA’s hate to see
    They know that in general I despise 2/3 of cops but I am loyal to our friendship regardless of the disconnect. And hell, they despise 10% of their co-workers so we are closer and closer to agreement.

    None of them would have been likely candidates to shoot the dog and they’d all have been able to handle simultaneous tasks like burglar lockdown, dumbass distraction, and animal control issue without breaking a sweat.

    steveg (794291)

  505. Wow, just got up and this is still going. I am amazed.

    Steve57, lots of research you did. Are you going to turn it into a training program and try to sell it to someone? If so, good luck with that and good for you, love to see people seeing a need and then doing something to fill it.

    I don’t know if anyone will particularly care, dog shootings are not exactly commonplace, they happen but not very often when you consider that the police respond to millions of incidents yearly where there are dogs present and the number of dog shootings number in the hundreds or maybe even thousands; whatever number you put on it it’s a small percentage.

    Just remember, sh*t happens out there. It’s going to happen regardless how much you train, how you train, or what you train for. Cops are going to prioritize what they do, what they spend time on and how they do it which means they will spend it on dealing with people, not dogs.

    Sorry I meant this to be an olive branch because you seem to be really invested in being right about this. Experience tells me and the other cops on the thread that these guys in the video did what they had to do, in the proper order and none of the people around them got hurt and Suspect went to jail. Bottom line is: looks bad done right. Sorry you were offended.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  506. Steve: Domo alligator Tachikawa golfball is mid-1960s GI Japanese for domo arigato gozamasu.

    Because of your familarity with sushi rice I assumed you had been in Japan and would recognize the phrase. My Japanese friends think it’s hilarious.

    I spent ’67 at Yokota working air evacs.

    ropelight (20622b)

  507. Long did I ponder and pray to the Divine Daughter of Zeus and Memory, and She graciously spake unto me thusly: “Google ye P.G. Wodehouse.”

    Good Gnus
    (A Vignette in Verse)

    When cares attack and life seems black,
    How sweet it is to pot a yak,
    Or puncture hares and grizzly bears,
    And others I could mention;
    But in my Animals “Who’s Who”
    No name stands higher than the Gnu;
    And each new gnu that comes in view
    Receives my prompt attention.

    When Afric’s sun is sinking low,
    And shadows wander to and fro,
    And everywhere there’s in the air
    A hush that’s deep and solemn;
    Then is the time good men and true
    With View Halloo pursue the gnu;
    (The safest spot to put your shot
    is through the spinal column).

    To take the creature by surprise
    We must adopt some rude disguise,
    Although deceit is never sweet,
    And falsehoods don’t attract us;
    So, as with gun in hand you wait,
    Remember to impersonate
    A tuft of grass, a mountain-pass,
    A kopje or a cactus.

    A brief suspense, and then at last
    The waiting’s o’er, the vigil past;
    A careful aim. A spurt of flame.
    It’s done. You’ve pulled the trigger,
    And one more gnu, so fair and frail,
    Has handed in its dinner-pail;
    (The females all are rather small,
    The males are somewhat bigger).
    — P G Wodehouse

    nk (875f57)

  508. Yes, grabbing for the leash indicates to the rest of us they didn’t mean the dog harm.

    Actually, it’s because the one cop — the one who ended up shooting the dog — did exactly that, due in part to the dog not being totally aggressive (like a pit bull from hell—meaning the dog behaving in a way that would make everyone understandably fearful of it), is why the scene caught on film wasn’t a no-brainer moment, or where it’s easy to understand why the shooter was totally forced to do what he did.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  509. On this blog nk kilt a doggiegnu (in cahoots with a clever poet)
    7th day of July YoOL 2013

    ropelight (20622b)

  510. I doubt I’m going to turn anything into a training program. It already seems to be a crowded field. There are plenty of cops and former cops willing and able to teach other cops how not to shoot dogs.

    The problem is no one is interested in learning. Your reaction seems to typify the overwhelmingly common attitude. We’re the professionals and we’re doing everything right.

    Your problem is almost no one isn’t a cop believes you. That and the fact you insist there’s no problem when a large percentage of the population disagrees.

    Cops are going to prioritize what they do, what they spend time on and how they do it which means they will spend it on dealing with people, not dogs.

    You see, these two things are not separate. They go together. You can not effectively deal with people unless you are prepared to deal with their dogs.

    Unfortunately your attitude seems to be, “I don’t need a plan, I’ve got a Glock.”

    This is what that leads to, from the DoJ report:

    In 1998, officers from the
    San Jose (California) Police Department
    raided two homes owned by Hell’s Angels
    motorcycle-club members and killed three
    dogs. The city paid the motorcycle club
    nearly $1 million as a result. Two other
    departments—Santa Clara and Gilroy—
    also paid for their involvement in the event.
    The grand total in damages reached nearly
    $1.8 million. City appeals were struck
    down by the courts, which cited Fourth
    Amendment violations, a failure to consider
    an alternative for “isolating” the dogs in the
    week-long planning of the raid,
    and a failure
    to use less lethal weapons. (Source: Lisa
    Spahr, “The Canine Factor: To Shoot or Not
    to Shoot,” Subject to Debate, a publication
    of the Police Executive Research Forum,
    January 2007.)

    I would recommend you read the DoJ report and perhaps expand your horizons, but I realize your time is precious and you can’t be bothered. Which is exactly the problem. Cops can plan a raid for a week, and it will never occur to them to include in the plan a way to deal with dogs. And the reason why it’ll never occur to them is because their own department will claim every time they shoot a dog it’s cool. Good luck dealing with people when you casually shoot their dogs.

    Do you really want this adversarial relationship with the populace you’re supposedly serving and protecting? That’s ultimately the bottom line. You think it’s good for the cops when people install security cameras because they think the main thing they need to guard against is the police shooting their dogs.

    Bonus question.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD2VOTQMGSg#at=105

    What’s the point of the catch pole if the cops are going to shoot the dog anyway?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  511. This is an educational thread, despite the signal to noise ratio not always being what we would like.

    Some responses to responses to me, particularly our gracious host’s, but first:

    360 Dustin: see 371, which I think is a pretty fair statement of the problem. Let me tell you an anecdote that I don’t think has been on the net. It’s about an atypical cop named Paul V. Meaney Jr. I took an interest in Meaney when he took an interest in me for, he thought, dating a woman who was “his.” (He was, in fact, married to a third party). He was a career patrolman with a three-inch-thick disciplinary file in the Woburn, MA, PD.

    He also had another habit: he was a serial rapist. He would pull women over, write a bullshit ticket, and give them the opportunity to suck it off. If they resisted or threatened him with exposure, he would laugh at them: “I’m a cop. Who are they going to believe, me or you?” As he was over 300 lbs, this had become his principal means of seeking “dates.”

    Meaney was also Teflon. His father was a former State Rep and current head of the city Chamber of Commerce. His brother Richard was also a cop. His brother Kevin was a parole officer in the court. All of them new about Paul’s “habit.” The police chief knew about it. The other policemen also knew about it. Woburn offi knew about it, and took that knowledge with them when they went to other departments and to Federal agencies.

    Meaney was also a drunk. (I’m not positioned to diagnose alcoholism, but he was a drunk, and a mean one). He was frequently involved in fights. He pulled a gun in a cop bar in another jurisdiction. The guy who took it from him gave it to his chief, who gave it to Meaney’s chief. Meaney’s chief gave it back to him in his office and no one knows what was said in there. Meaney’s behavior didn’t change, which should surprise no one. A man’s character is a fairly fixed thing.

    In the end, Meaney’s reign of terror was brought to an end by a young girl whose mother convinced her that she did indeed have a chance to tell the truth against a lying cop, and a single prosecutor who was willing to buck the entire police department, and the other prosecutors, to jail a bad cop.

    He got a seven year sentence, and in Massachusetts, where nobody does his time, his conduct in prison meant he did it all and came out as a registered Level 3 sex offender.

    Now, Meaney was a bad cop. We can all agree with the judge and jury on that. Were the other guys bad cops? All of them? Or were they just subject to the usual in-group morality of a small, identifiable group placed under pressure and isolated in some way from society as a whole? I don’t know. I’m inclined to think, as I said, that Meaney was a very atypical policeman, he was an extreme outlier; and his many enablers, who never in a million years would have committed the crimes he did, were typical cops.

    You can only address something like that with leadership, and the departmental leadership failed. Now, I am discounting the effect that things like the union contract had on the management of the department. I suspect that Jesus Christ Himself couldn’t have fired Meaney until that young heroine spoke up and the jury came back with the verdict.

    I am hardly a cop hater. I know lots of cops, at all levels and across many jurisdictions. They’re just guys. But their departments tend to have the same problem some military units, and even some ordinary business firms, get into from time to time: they don’t take out the trash. They have neither the will nor the mechanisms for doing so. And as a result you have a Paul Meaney, who probably committed over 100 rapes (although I only know of 10 personally, and the women would not come forward) before he finally went into prison (and the protective housing unit, where he spent most of his time).

    Again, this is just one example. It isn’t just gangs and gang-infested neighborhoods that have raised “no snitching” to a sacramental level. This is just one example and from my years of close contact with officers and agents I can tell you every one can (and does) tell you who the dirtbags are in his department or agency, and no one raises their voice against them. (On the federal side, the problem children seem to rocket into supervision. Dunno why).

    370: Patterico: my source for “arrested for filming” claim was a news report, but I can’t recall which one, that appeared to quote police on the scene. I’ve probably read 40 reports on this trying to figure out WTF?

    You are correct that the first statement from the police spox on the issue said almost exactly the same way you formulated it, that the irksome Rosby was arrested for obstructing the police BY playing his music too loud. So while I did not pull it out of my ass, I did pull it off a news story on the Internet (and not Balko!!) so that may be functionally the same thing.

    My opinion on the courage and judgment, or lack of the same, of the shooter is based on 30 years military experience including more extensive combat shooting training than most people receive; on my time in combat; on my experience with and knowledge of selection and assessment of people who are required to function under stress; and my own dog encounters, including one downrange, with a dog of similar dimensions but rather worse disposition. No shots were fired, and the dog (an Afghan mastiff raised as a fighting dog) and I did both survive, although I was medevaced that evening because the CJSOTF physician thought I would benefit from a rabies booster series.

    When the dog attacked I actually threw my carbine to a friend, and choked the critter out (I did have two handguns on me still). Since friendlies and civilians were around 360º, shooting seemed unwise.

    Indeed the rabies medevac was unnecessary. Since we had custody of the dog, we would see it breaking with rabies in time to get me the shots, not to mention that I’d been vaccinated just a few months previously. It was just a doc going belt-and-suspenders. The most hazardous evolution in the whole thing was a night helo ride through the Hindu Kush.

    (Thanks, California Army National Guard and your HH-60Qs, I think it was… you guys rock).

    I wonder if Steve, who suggests better training in dog behaviors for the police, might have a point. I do know that cop training hours are limited and are very full of “check the box” stuff that is of little practical utility to the officer on patrol, but responds to whatever media ructions and court cases are current. I wish him luck.

    Three final points (for this post, anyway),
    1. I apologize for assuming our host was involved in this case. If I had given it a moment’s thought, I’d realize he would not be blogging about a case that was on his own desk. Has he ever done anything like that? Of course not.

    2. I stand by my assessment of the officer in question. This is one kind of under-stress choke, and a guy who chokes like this will continue to choke in various ways. He’s no good, and if they can’t can him (and they probably can’t), they should probably bench him. The two MP5 guys were not that level of unprofessional, but it retrospect it looks pretty dumb to arrest the owner (who may have been very uncooperative beforehand, but who appears cooperative with the arrest) without securing the dog. Of course, how do you do that? Hopefully some thought will go into that and they’ll develop something in terms of lessons learned.

    3. The Hawthorne PD has already been defeated in detail in the court of public opinion on this. This stupid action will have lasting consequences, and that the initiating stupidity was Rosby’s will not help the department. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (2165ef)

  512. 504.Steve: Domo alligator Tachikawa golfball is mid-1960s GI Japanese for domo arigato gozamasu.

    Because of your familarity with sushi rice I assumed you had been in Japan and would recognize the phrase. My Japanese friends think it’s hilarious.

    I spent ’67 at Yokota working air evacs.

    Comment by ropelight (20622b) — 7/7/2013 @ 7:47 am

    I’m slow on the uptake. I figured out how to read kana in a couple of weeks and then discovered I couldn’t do much with it.

    I’d go to the local train station and while I was waiting for the express I’d stare at a the billboards sounding out the words in my mind. I knew since it was in katakana it was a non Japanese word, most likely English. “Kontakuto rensu.”

    It took me an entire weekend to figure out it was an ad for contact lenses.

    I was in Japan a few years later than you and the big joke had become “don’t touch my moustache.” That’s what people would say instead of “doitashimashite.” The Americans thought it was hilarious, the Japanese not so much by then.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  513. At Waco the first shots fired by the ATF were at the Branch Dividians’ dogs. That’s when David Koresh walked out on the front porch to appeal for calm and to let the ATF’s assault team know there were women and children inside.

    That’s when he was shot and all hell broke lose, resulting in the death and wounding of several ATF agents and eventually almost 90 men, women, and children.

    ropelight (20622b)

  514. Also, claiming the Hawthorne incident was shoot first is a blatant misrepresentation when the officers first attempted to restrain the animal by grabbing its leash.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/6/2013

    Four feet tall Japanese men? They are more like 5’7″ on average. Anyone saying that should consider keeping their thoughts to themselves.

    Steve, your guru of all topics comments such as:

    I doubt I’m going to turn anything into a training program.

    stand in sharp contrast to your stunning ignorance, as shown in many comments like:

    “I don’t need a plan, I’ve got a Glock.”

    and

    impossible to believe they don’t want to shoot dogs.

    and

    it will never occur to them to include in the plan a way to deal with dogs. And the reason why it’ll never occur to them is because their own department will claim every time they shoot a dog it’s cool

    Steve, despite DCSCA levels of poseur, you really are ignorant of this topic. That’s a simple fact. You do not know what you are talking about. Your varied suggestions for what the police should have done could have gotten people killed and would not have actually saved the dog.

    Instead of admitting your mistake, you began flooding the thread with tens of thousands of words of copypasta about about completely different incidents (which no one is defending). They actually highlight your lack of understanding.

    Dog shootings are extremely rare, and when a person is arrested their dog is sent to animal control anyway. Bad things happen in the real world you sound so divorced from. You cannot plan around every single possibility, and when looking at a video of what someone did, if you cannot come up with a safer way to do things (and steve, you couldn’t… your suggestions were incredibly reckless and too informed by hindsight rather than intelligence) then you need to back off a little.

    But instead of backing off you are amping it up over and over, as though the only thing that matters is being right.

    You’re usually a lot more reasonable, Steve, but it’s clear you have some kind of problem with the men who actually show bravery and get things done in our world. You want to express how you are better than them, but your attempts are not having that effect at all.

    Dustin (303dca)

  515. Quoted the wrong part, but my response to Daleyrocks was that indeed those saying the cops shot first are provable liars.

    Dustin (303dca)

  516. so let’s raise a glass
    to Man’s Best Friend here on Earth
    and curse douche owner

    Colonel Haiku (3eb711)

  517. Does anyone have any statistics on how many police offers have been killed or seriously wounded by dogs, perhaps on a year by year basis?

    I don’t know about injuries, but a grand total of 0 cops have been killed on duty in the last 50 years by dogs. 2 have been killed by bees, and 1 by cow, but no dog related cop fatalities. According to odmp.org.

    Ghost (2d8874)

  518. Dustin – You should indeed read what Steve refers to as the DoJ report because it is unintentionally hilarious. It was written by four authors under a grant from the DoJ and it represents the views of the authors, not the DoJ. It is written largely from the perspective of the animal owner rather than law enforcement, devoting significant time to telling us how rarely dog bites are fatal so that LEOs really are overreacting or something.

    Good to know.

    I missed the section on what an LEO should do if confronted by an aggressive dog in a dangerous situation which was impeding him/her from performing his/her duties.

    Great diagrams on reading doggy body language.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  519. Dog shooting are not “rare”. They are not always reported (beyond the department level).
    and you blithely assert that well, they are just sent to animal control anyway.
    Which I guess by your reasoning is: dog shot or taken by animal control? Same thing.
    I defer to your GENIUS! on that one.

    57 points out a raid that cost $1.8M to shoot the dogs. Not that shooting the dogs wouldn’t have been necessary during the raid, I don’t expect SWAT guys to let pit bulls to get them killed, but their warrant better be clean and they better produce clean arrests or if it gets to a jury, it’ll cost the department(s) and agencies a
    lot. Which is probably why they settle.

    I do not speak for for 57,
    but this dreck about having problems with men who actually show bravery and get things done in this world is stupid even by your standards. Oh wait. They put on a badge and AUTOMATICALLY become brave and they “get things done” Wow. They get things done. Let me pause and genuflect before that pearl. OH WAIT… in this world. Whoa! Did you just take this into the ether with the word world.
    BRILLIANT!
    Again let me bask for a moment in the depth of your person OK then that was fast that depth was sorta like the puddle under the cow at the dairy farm I so non bravely worked at while getting nothing done in this world.
    You surround yourself with other people who have guns and power which is sort of cowardly. Leave the locker room. Smell some real air.

    By the way 18-24 year olds in Afghanistan kick doors in regularly and don’t shoot the dogs. Different ROE’s.

    Answer me this: Is the cop that was adjacent to a home where an operation was ongoing, brave and getting things done in this world when he shot the uninvolved neighbors dog which was tied up on a tether in their own back yard?
    I know he followed procedure and protocol while wearing a badge which is bravery by definition around here, and clearly he was getting things done in this world, so I guess I just answered my own question.

    SteveG (794291)

  520. Oh.
    When I worked breiefly at the dairy farm, we were not allwed to shoot the cows that kicked us, much less those cows who seemed about to kick.

    I guess when I had to move a boulder pile that was infested with rattlesnakes and had to remove/relocate the frickin snakes as found per the county biologists protocol, that wasn’t brave and got nothing done. (no snakes were killed on purpose. two were sorta smushed between the rocks)
    Had to be careful how I rigged the chains on the ones that were too big for the thumb on the excavator and always always check on where my legs and feet were.

    SteveG (794291)

  521. Four feet tall Japanese men?

    Dustin, I was referring specifically to older Japanese men who grew up during or immediately after WWII.

    I was exaggerating how stunted their growth was, but their growth was stunted by a lack of nutrition.

    R.e. dog shootings, they’re not rare. The LAPD statistics from 2005 I cited show that 25% of the time the police fire a weapon it’s at a dog. One in four is not rare.

    As far as my recommendations go none of them have been as unsafe or reckless as shooting the dog. Which is apparently the first reaction of the police. Bystanders have been injured by police bullet because defense rounds designed to deal with human-sized beings aren’t always going to be stopped by a 30 or 50 or in this case an 80 pound dog.

    There were people in the direction the cops were shooting. You do realize that? You can see them in the video prior to the point where the cops let things get out of hand.

    I don’t like the fact I’m on the opposite side of you, or SPQR, or Beldar, on this issue. But I’m going to have to persist in what you believe is my unreasonableness because I know I have a point.

    I should be an easy guy to bring around to the cops’ side. I’ve already mentioned I was forced to whack a pit bull on the head with a shovel handle when the neighbor’s druggie kid let it loose. I’ve admitted I had to shoot a pit bull attacking my neighbor’s donkey. I should also probably bring up the fact my first Chesapeake Bay Retriever pup was killed by Rottweiler and a German Shepherd, so I’m not particularly a fan of Rottweilers.

    The Rottie in the video just wasn’t a difficult dog. How little do you have to know about dogs to know it snapped at but didn’t bite the officer who lunged at its leash because it really didn’t want to? Very, very little, I’m forced to say.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  522. To all of you who seem to believe it’s OK for someone to interfere with the police when they are dealing with a potentially violent situation and then allow your large and scary dog to run free toward them I ask: What is wrong with you? Did you check your brains at the door?

    ToddT (1d956b)

  523. SteveG – Steve57 pointed out a 1998 raid on a Hells Angels HQ and houses after which the Hells Angels sued. California Courts found the counties liable and the Supreme Court ultimately denied cert and two counties agreed to major settlement eight years after the raid.

    What lesson should we learn?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  524. daley @515, do you think I was trying to conceal anything by linking to the articles I linked to? I know what the report I linked to says. I read it. I linked to it anyway.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  525. 520. …What lesson should we learn?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 10:27 am

    Howzabout when you’re taking a week out of your schedule to plan a raid, include a paragraph in your plan about isolating the dogs.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  526. SteveG – Cows vs. Dogs

    Learning opportunity for Law Enforcement

    How are they similar?

    How are they different?

    Danger to performing your job?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  527. 519.To all of you who seem to believe it’s OK for someone to interfere with the police when they are dealing with a potentially violent situation and then allow your large and scary dog to run free toward them I ask: What is wrong with you? Did you check your brains at the door?

    Comment by ToddT (1d956b) — 7/7/2013 @ 10:27 am

    Was the big scary dog a surprise? The cops missed that?

    How hard would it be to order the suspect to tie the damned thing up and then submit to arrest as opposed to dropping the leash and then submitting to arrest?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  528. so let’s raise a glass
    to Man’s Best Friend here on Earth
    and curse douche owner

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (3eb711) — 7/7/2013 @ 9:43 am

    Indeed. And while we’re at it, let’s raise another to the police officers who deal with douches in person, and then douches who scrutinize their work to require clairvoyance and perfection.

    Great diagrams on reading doggy body language.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 9:52 am

    Hilarious.

    Dustin (303dca)

  529. Steve57 @520 – I have not claimed you are concealing anything. You have claimed that it is a fact that police dog shootings are increasing and a fact that police are increasingly resorting to shoot first tactics with respect to dogs, but as I said in my #500, I have seen nothing to support the claim of increasing dog shootings.

    Was something in my comment unclear?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  530. 523.SteveG – Cows vs. Dogs

    Learning opportunity for Law Enforcement

    How are they similar?

    How are they different?

    Danger to performing your job?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 10:32 am

    daley, the most common animal cops shoot are dogs. But they’re not the only ones.

    The fact is rural police officers often have to deal with animals other than dogs. It helps if they have some familiarity with them. I don’t see the point in belittling the situation.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  531. “Howzabout when you’re taking a week out of your schedule to plan a raid, include a paragraph in your plan about isolating the dogs.”

    Steve57 – That there sounds like a sensible idea to communicate to law enforcement nationwide since the case was lost on 4th Amendment grounds. If you are aware of the potential for unsecured big scary dogs ahead of time before executing a raid, develop a plan to deal with them. The DoJ report suggests bringing doggy treats to scatter around to distract the dogs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  532. 526.Steve57 @520 – I have not claimed you are concealing anything. You have claimed that it is a fact that police dog shootings are increasing and a fact that police are increasingly resorting to shoot first tactics with respect to dogs, but as I said in my #500, I have seen nothing to support the claim of increasing dog shootings.

    Was something in my comment unclear?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 10:43 am

    Nothing in your comment is unclear. I admit it’s entirely possible that cops have routinely shot dogs as a matter of course. It’s not really possible to say because there really aren’t good statistics on the subject.

    Which doesn’t address the question of whether or not the rate at which police officers shoot dogs is appropriate.

    I submit not. The dog in the video is exhibit A. The owner is an a**hole of the first magnitude. The dog, surprisingly, isn’t. In the time I it took for the officers to shoot it I could have been taking it for a walk. It acted aggressively at some points, but then in others it was clearly looking for an out.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  533. If you are aware of the potential for unsecured big scary dogs ahead of time before executing a raid, develop a plan to deal with them. The DoJ report suggests bringing doggy treats to scatter around to distract the dogs.

    That solution is almost as stupid as grizzly spray in your own face. A threatening dog protecting its owner will not be distracted by kibble.

    BTW I am pretty sure cops do plan for dogs when they can. That doesn’t apply in this case, of course, where even the dog’s owner was surprised by the dog, and was the only party who knew how well the dog was or wasn’t secured.

    The cops can’t plan away every problem, especially in cases like this where the bad guy confronts them during something dangerous.

    Dustin (303dca)

  534. BTW I am pretty sure cops do plan for dogs when they can.

    The evidence indicates otherwise. So do the statements of law enforcement officers on this comment thread.

    Cops are going to prioritize what they do, what they spend time on and how they do it which means they will spend it on dealing with people, not dogs.

    I suppose it’s also unreasonable for me to quote people?

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  535. http://www.kdbc.com/news/aggressive-dog-put-down-after-biting-animal-control-officer-in-face

    This why officers take getting bitten by a dog seriously. Despite Steve57’s estimation that the dog was not vicious,

    Steve57 @ comment 13 “That dog was not vicious”

    There is no way to know whether a dog is vicious or not, particularly from a video snippet.

    History is repleat with dog owners being attacked suddenly by their own dogs. Read through a few cases at this blog…

    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/

    Notice the cases of dogs turning on their owners? If a dog’s owner can’t foresee that his animal will turn vicious, how is a police officer, confronted with an unknown large and aggressive dog, supposed to divine that it is not vicious?

    There are also examples of officers unsuccessfully using pepper spray to ward off dogs.

    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/2013/06/williamson-county-il-aco-requests.html
    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/2013/07/cumberland-county-nc-2-pit-bulls.html

    In the end, the douche-bag who showed up at the scene of a barricaded armed robbery suspect with his radio blaring like it was some sort of block party, refused to turn his radio down, and then took his 130 lb Rottweiler out of his car and paraded it around like he was showing his prize bull at a 4H show is responsible for what happened to his dog.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  536. I am having trouble hearing Zaggs because with him being in moderation this music is mostly drowning him out, but I think he is making a big honking deal out of the fact that the robber was arrested before the dog owner.

    If only I had addressed that non-point in the post. Oh wait: I did! It’s just that Zaggs didn’t read my post. Here is what I said: “He has obstructed police and is subject to arrest, but they wait until the situation with the robber is under control before dealing with him.”

    Zaggs’s devastating point thus comes pre-rebutted.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  537. 370: Patterico: my source for “arrested for filming” claim was a news report, but I can’t recall which one, that appeared to quote police on the scene. I’ve probably read 40 reports on this trying to figure out WTF?

    You are correct that the first statement from the police spox on the issue said almost exactly the same way you formulated it, that the irksome Rosby was arrested for obstructing the police BY playing his music too loud. So while I did not pull it out of my ass, I did pull it off a news story on the Internet (and not Balko!!) so that may be functionally the same thing.

    So, in other words, I think you are acknowledging that the police never changed their story on this. I appreciate the acknowledgement, and I hope you will correct others who say the same thing you initially did. It’s tough fighting a false narrative that goes viral.

    I also appreciate the apology for the suggestion that I had anything to do with this case. I accept it.

    You say that the PD has already lost the battle of public opinion on this. I suspect you’re right — but that is because of the natural human tendency to base all of their conclusions on a video, to believe virtually anything they read on the Internet without questioning it, and to jump to conclusions based on insufficient information.

    There may be a valid basis to criticize the officer’s shooting even when all the relevant factors are understood and acknowledged. I don’t think so, personally, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to take that position.

    What IS unreasonable is to ignore the important factors or make idiotic arguments about them, like Zaggs has — like: duh, because the robber was arrested that means there was no obstruction; or, duuh, because people across the street could hear some of what the owner was yelling then the music was not loud; or, duuuh, because they waited to arrest him until after the robbery suspect situation that means he didn’t do anything; or, duuuuh, this is no different from blasting your music on a city street while you are driving and there is no standoff with a felony suspect; or any of the other ridiculous arguments we have heard from the likes of Zaggs.

    Zaggs! Oh, Zaggs! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  538. 534. This why officers take getting bitten by a dog seriously. Despite Steve57′s estimation that the dog was not vicious,

    Steve57 @ comment 13 “That dog was not vicious”

    There is no way to know whether a dog is vicious or not, particularly from a video snippet.

    History is repleat with dog owners being attacked suddenly by their own dogs. Read through a few cases at this blog…

    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 7/7/2013 @ 11:17 am

    I said the dog wasn’t vicious. That isn’t the same thing as saying the dog wasn’t potentially dangerous. In the end a fear biter can do as much damage as a truly vicious dog.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  539. 534. …In the end, the douche-bag who showed up at the scene of a barricaded armed robbery suspect with his radio blaring like it was some sort of block party, refused to turn his radio down, and then took his 130 lb Rottweiler out of his car and paraded it around like he was showing his prize bull at a 4H show is responsible for what happened to his dog.

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 7/7/2013 @ 11:17 am

    So having been paraded around by some jerkoff, that sealed the fate of this dog?

    It’s telling that missing from your narrative is any aggression shown by the dog.

    I’m sure you’ll correct your mistake now that I’ve pointed it out, but I find your narrative compelling because you reveal what really pissed you off to the point of wanting to shoot this dog in front of its owner.

    As I’ve said, you’ll now add in the half-hearted reaction the dog gave to the cop lunging for its leash. But the fact you didn’t factor it in the first time speaks volumes.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  540. “I don’t see the point in belittling the situation.”

    Steve57 – Then you should have addressed your comment to SteveG and asked him why he thought comparing cows to dogs was relevant to this thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  541. To go off on an important tangent, in addition to Calfed admitting it was the owner and not the dog that pissed him off he said:

    There is no way to know whether a dog is vicious or not, particularly from a video snippet.

    History is repleat with dog owners being attacked suddenly by their own dogs. Read through a few cases at this blog…

    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/

    Notice the cases of dogs turning on their owners? If a dog’s owner can’t foresee that his animal will turn vicious, how is a police officer, confronted with an unknown large and aggressive dog, supposed to divine that it is not vicious?

    Essentially he restated the reason we have leash laws in the first place. So I can not fathom why police officers who ought to know better allowed a suspect who clearly had a large and potentially dangerous dog to just drop the leash and leave the dog unsecured in a public place.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  542. “It’s not really possible to say because there really aren’t good statistics on the subject.”

    Steve57 – This is exactly why it is an error to claim that is a fact that police shootings of dogs have been increasing as you have repeatedly done on this thread when you have no evidence to back it up. That may be your belief or opinion, but nothing has been presented or quoted to establish it as a fact.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  543. 539.“I don’t see the point in belittling the situation.”

    Steve57 – Then you should have addressed your comment to SteveG and asked him why he thought comparing cows to dogs was relevant to this thread.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 11:53 am

    You’re not responsible for saying:

    529.523.SteveG – Cows vs. Dogs

    Learning opportunity for Law Enforcement

    How are they similar?

    How are they different?

    Danger to performing your job?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/7/2013 @ 10:32 am

    It certainly seems to me you had a hand in, and that its justifiable to address a few questions your way.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  544. “So I can not fathom why police officers who ought to know better allowed a suspect who clearly had a large and potentially dangerous dog to just drop the leash and leave the dog unsecured in a public place.”

    Derp!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  545. daley @541, I’m perfectly willing to admit that it’s only my impression that police dog-shootings are on the rise.

    In fact, I believe I have along the way to stating I’m not satisfied with the answers I’m getting as to why cops routinely shoot dogs. Whether or not the rate is increasing, decreasing, or holding steady.

    Steve57 (c74c87)

  546. An example of hair-splitting…

    I said the dog wasn’t vicious. That isn’t the same thing as saying the dog wasn’t potentially dangerous. In the end a fear biter can do as much damage as a truly vicious dog.–Steve57

    There is no way for you to determine from a few seconds on a video whether the dog was vicious or not. People have lived for years with a dog, only to find out that it was indeed vicious.

    It’s telling that missing from your narrative is any aggression shown by the dog.
    -Steve57

    The aggression was shown late in the video, when the dog was jumping at the officer, snarling and possibly snapping at him.

    I’m sure you’ll correct your mistake now that I’ve pointed it out, but I find your narrative compelling because you reveal what really pissed you off to the point of wanting to shoot this dog in front of its owner.-Steve57

    Huh? Are you suggesting that I wanted to shoot the dog? Are you nuts?

    The owner came to the scene of a barricaded suspect, paraded his dog around a crowd and failed to secure it when he had the chance. That doesn’t make me angry–it makes him responsible.

    As I’ve said, you’ll now add in the half-hearted reaction the dog gave to the cop lunging for its leash. But the fact you didn’t factor it in the first time speaks volumes.–Steve57

    Oh, I’ll add that? you mean on top of the two times that I’ve already mentioned it?

    The officer made several attempts to grab the dog and was met by snarling and possibly snapping (it is hard to tell from the video). That is more than I would do and probably more than he needed to do.–Calfed @ 35

    They made several attempts to collar it before shooting it…and shooting only after the dog had aggressively snarled and snapped at the officers.-Calfed @ 244


    In the end a fear biter can do as much damage as a truly vicious dog.
    -Steve57

    Ahh, so after a few seconds of video, you can determine that the dog was a “fear-biter”.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  547. “Howzabout when you’re taking a week out of your schedule to plan a raid, include a paragraph in your plan about isolating the dogs.”

    Insty, yesterday, linked to a Balko post about “10 failed raids”, one of which was one that was planned for weeks, and one of the elements in the plans that was missing was the presence of children in the home.
    If they miss kids, how can we expect them to account for dogs?

    “Unintended consequences” seems to be a term that has been stricken from the police vocabulary.
    I saw that yesterday in front of my home.
    The closest major intersection experienced a death producing vehicle accident. This intersection is 25% in one jurisdiction, and 75% in the neighboring jurisdiction. The accident (and death) occurred in the 25% part, and the LE agency that had jurisdiction closed the intersection, and diverted all traffic around it. But, they had no further plan on what to do with that traffic, which then tried to find a detour down every adjacent residential street. No one in either agency thought to put up a series of detour signs that could route this considerable volumn of traffice around the closure on four-lane streets which were available, and allowed a steady stream of vehicles to course through residential streets that in some cases only had one lane if cars were (legally) parked on both curbs.
    Charitably, it could be called a Cluster Fuck!

    askeptic (2bb434)

  548. Steve57 @544 How do you come up with “cops routinely shoot dogs”? I spent 10 years on LAPD working Wilshire, Venice, Van Nuys and Hollywood all the time on the street. After I left L.A. I worked on a northern ca police department for 20 years before retiring. In all that time, I never saw or heard of an Officer shooting a dog. I know that it happens, but it didn’t happen in the agencies where I was working at the time I was working there. How could that be possible if dog shootings are in fact a routine thing?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  549. The part of the story (and nothing else) that involves the dog and the cop who shot it isn’t as black-and-white as the Martin-Zimmerman story or certainly the OJ-Nicole-Ron-Goldman case. So if either side is ambivalent about the whole thing, I can understand that. But to treat the matter as an absolute, with a reaction of total certainty — and with indignation aimed at the opposing POV — doesn’t make sense to me.

    My take is that the cop was pissed and full of adrenaline, and those things — more than a great fear of a lunging, growling, wild dog — are what caused the trigger to be pulled. I’d say otherwise if the cop had never attempted to get near the dog in the first place, which is the way I’ll generally treat any canine whose behavior I haven’t observed for an extended time.

    Mark (8f17bd)

  550. Lbcatcher, did I not link to an article in which the LAPD’s own statistics showed that LAPD officers fired at dogs about twice a month for a 20 year period.

    Comment #447.

    If something can be recorded as happening on average about once every two weeks over a 20 year period I tend to define that as routine.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  551. Steve57

    2 shootings a month is something for sure, but with the volume of calls that LAPD gets I still don’t know if l would call that routine. You call it 1 every two weeks, which makes it seem like it’s routine. That’s not the way to judge whether it’s routine or not. Routine is something that happens often, like a traffic stop or a warrant arrest.

    How routine is it if LAPD answers 10,000 calls for service a month? .0002? 10,000 a month is a conservative number for 17 divisions (maybe more now, I left in 1980). Would you call 1 in 5,000 routine ? Add in all the traffic stops and self initiated contacts by Officers, the numbers get really big then. So no, shooting a dog is not routine, it is unusual and far from routine.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  552. Lbcatcher, as long as we’re on speaking terms I want to emphasize I don’t hate cops.

    Back when I was stationed in Sandy Eggo I belonged to a club that got together to train gun dogs. Retrievers, spaniels, pointers. There were cops in the mix, too. We all got along well.

    I’m not involved anymore because I moved to Texas and strychnine traps. I had high hopes for my expensive pedigreed Gordon Setter until I found out that any lease I can afford would kill him. So he’s now a pet. Just like the rescue dog which cost me nothing.

    What I don’t understand is, what happened?

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  553. Steve57

    So I’m lost, you trained dogs, did great things with animals, what does that have anything to do with what happened,

    and the burning question is – if it was a cat, and it was a real mean P@@@@y would this column get 600 comments?

    E.PWJ (07f158)

  554. Ropelight:

    Is it just me, or did Steve57 fail your “Japanese” test?
    Did your eyebrows rise when he responded to your (indirect) “challenge” question of:

    “I spent ’67 at Yokota working air evacs”

    with:

    “I was in Japan a few years later than you and the big joke had become “don’t touch my moustache.” That’s what people would say instead of “doitashimashite.” The Americans thought it was hilarious, the Japanese not so much by then.”

    I find myself wondering if both you and Dustin are changing my view of our Steve57 – especially Dustin’s skepticism.

    felipe (6100bc)

  555. Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    Notice the bias in his/her article by setting up the person that has the dog, arrest record information etc.

    So Patterico if you are an honest person I assume you will be posting the record of the officers in question. Surely they have never done anything wrong, ever?

    If you are an honest journo, which I suspect you are not, you will follow the facts where they lead instead of following the ones that suit your personal view.

    Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  556. Those on the right, myself included…”

    Goodness! I can’t imagine anyone being on your left!

    felipe (6100bc)

  557. 554

    Please explain for the class.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  558. “Notice the bias in his/her article…”

    This is how I know I can trust the commenter!

    felipe (6100bc)

  559. rsxfan

    You can look up anger management classes in your area by going on your local mental department website

    Good luck, I wish you well

    E.PWJ (07f158)

  560. “Please explain for the class”

    I am always happy to explain myself to a class of one:

    If there is no one to your left, how can you be on the right- with others? Oh, wait, you are talking about your “other” right.

    felipe (6100bc)

  561. I’ll plead ignorant to following your post.

    Please explain further. You can’t imagine anyone being on my left, then this is how “I know I can trust the commenter!”

    I’m not following, again I plead ignorance to your comments.

    My central point is the “right” doesn’t need people like Patterico doing exactly what those on the “right”, myself included”, do by writing a biased article with only facts from one side. (See the Zimmerman case.) The owner of the dog may be in fact a complete loser, however you can’t tell that from just this video, you also don’t know if the officer is a class A officer, or someone that has a record himself. There just isn’t enough information, yet Patterico decided to write the article with a bias, instead of facts.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  562. 558, that’s it? Seriously that’s it?

    OK.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  563. Surreal

    JD (b63a52)

  564. I know, right?

    felipe (6100bc)

  565. hehe, I may have to rewrite that. It’s what you get when you post while having conversations with your kids about the plans for the next day.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  566. So felipe,

    Back to the conversation at hand. Is it genuine for patterico to post an article with negative information about one part in the video, and nothing about the other? How about any back up information regarding what he/she posted about the person patterico sided against/

    We need more true writers, true in the sense that you post the facts, all of them, then let people decide. That didn’t happen in this article, nor seems to be trait for this blogger.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  567. “We need more true writers, true in the sense that you post the facts, all of them, then let people decide.”

    I agree with this statement of yours, totally! No sarcasm at all. We agree rsxfan.

    felipe (6100bc)

  568. How can you claim that it is a practice of this blogger, when you are obviously unfamiliar with his/her work?

    JD (b63a52)

  569. thanks felipe.

    JD, how do you know if I am, or I am not, familiar with his/her work?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  570. Careful with that hammer, JD.

    felipe (6100bc)

  571. I do not know what might have led me/others to that conclusion.

    Felipe – sometimes it is just too easy. No fun.

    JD (b63a52)

  572. 571

    So you comment in the same manner as the writer of this blog. No actual basis in fact, just your predetermined opinion of someone you know nothing about.

    The fact you responded with “I do not know what might have led me/others to that conclusion” while never listing so much as one example to make your case is the perfect example of what I was pointing out regarding this article, and in a larger sense this blogger.

    I have no idea what would have lead me/others to that conclusion about you.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  573. I apologize for making assumptions about rsxfan. I cannot imagine why I might have come to such a flawed conclusion about him/her.

    JD (b63a52)

  574. Very well said, sir.

    felipe (6100bc)

  575. So after that poor excuse of a retort, please answer my original question to you,

    In 568 you said/asked

    “How can you claim that it is a practice of this blogger, when you are obviously unfamiliar with his/her work?”

    and in 569 I asked,

    “JD, how do you know if I am, or I am not, familiar with his/her work?”

    Then you tried deflection with this comment,

    “I apologize for making assumptions about rsxfan. I cannot imagine why I might have come to such a flawed conclusion about him/her.”

    I’m just curious how you know if I am, or I am not, familiar with Pont’s blogging? Or were you just defending blindly this blog?

    If you were in fact defending blindly, then you are a fool. Even the best writers make mistakes, and owning them makes them credible.

    Patterico has his/her opinions, and that’s fine by me, as it should be, but his/her opinions are biased and should be called out when his/her opinion is.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  576. rsxfan, JD has publicy apologized to you. It is highly unchivalrous (sic?) of you to belabor the issue. I advise you to respond to grace with grace. You will win friends in this manner.

    felipe (6100bc)

  577. Then let JD explain in 573 how it was a chivalrous apology after adding to said apology,

    “I cannot imagine why I might have come to such a flawed conclusion about him/her.”

    A chivalrous apology contains no such sarcasm. In fact it ends at the apology, without further comment. JD was not apologizing.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  578. I cannot think of any reason why anyone might suspect that you are not familiar with his/her blogging. It is clear that you are very familiar with Pont’s blogging.

    JD (b63a52)

  579. Have it your way, rsxfan. But be advised; an apology (real or imagined) from JD is rare. It does not speak well of you to toss it aside.

    felipe (6100bc)

  580. Here, JD, use my hammer – it has never been used.

    felipe (6100bc)

  581. 578,

    OK, weak, but OK.

    In the mean time,

    “Is it genuine for patterico to post an article with negative information about one part in the video, and nothing about the other?”

    So is this OK in your mind? Isn’t this what happened to Zimmerman,(biased reporting)?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  582. “Is it genuine for patterico to post an article with negative information about one part in the video, and nothing about the other?”

    Not sure what genuine has anything to do with it. Is it common? Whatever. I don’t accept your unstated premise, that he is pushing a narrative for one side. He is giving full context to the incident, beyond the snippet used to gin up outrage.

    JD (b63a52)

  583. filipe,

    My secondary point is how this commentary got off on a deflection instead of arguing the original point.

    As soon as a I attacked the article, and to some degree the author, it became an attack on me, instead of countering the point/s I was making.

    Isn’t that what the “left” does on a daily basis? Isn’t this blog meant to be a “right” leaning site?

    Why is it not OK to question those supposedly on our side?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  584. “The dog’s owner is someone with a history of confrontations with police and resisting arrest.”

    “He has a lawsuit against the city and arguably had a motivation to start another confrontation that he could add to his lawsuit”

    Yup JD, not bias in his article whatsoever.
    I freely admit this person may be a scumbag, but I don’t assume it like Patts, and yourself did. That’s the difference.

    So Patt posted that information about the person that owned the dog, fair enough, how about posting the records of the officer that shot the dog? Wouldn’t that be telling the complete story?

    Think about it, the officer may be a class A , , officer, nothing to leave out in the article.

    The truth is always better than partial stories.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  585. We all get your point. You are familiar with Patt’s Pont’s and disagree with his/her manner of reporting the full context of this story.

    JD (871bc6)

  586. rsxfan, Patterico’s phrasing that you yourself quote “arguably had a motivation …” is not assuming that he was a scumbag, as you assert.

    SPQR (768505)

  587. Rsxfan, I am an independant. I have no idea what the “left” does on a daily basis. I am uninterested in anyone telling me what the “left” does on a daily basis. Please ask the blog host if this is supposed to be a right leaning site.

    I read this blog as well as others for information and perspective. I can say that there are many voices heard here that are not on the “right” that are given careful consideration when expressed in a forthright manner. argueing in “good faith” is highly respected and defended by Patterico. I will agree that the commenters have said, themselves that they lean “right”, but you are the only commenter who has said, or alleged, that this site is meant to lean to the right.

    I respect this sight because of the host’s rare use of banning. At one point, even unbanning all that had been banned before as an excercise in free speach. To me, THAT is genuine.

    felipe (6100bc)

  588. 585,

    Translation,

    Patts is biased and we are OK with that.

    Wait a minute isn’t Patt an attorney? Isn’t he/she supposed to not be biased and follow the facts wherever they may lead?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  589. “sight” might as well be expressed as “vision”. Either way, I meant to type “site”.

    felipe (6100bc)

  590. Kthxby

    This is silly. Giving fuller context to a story is bad.

    JD (871bc6)

  591. So Patt posted that information about the person that owned the dog, fair enough, how about posting the records of the officer that shot the dog? Wouldn’t that be telling the complete story?

    I believe police disciplinary records are not public

    http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_22632224/cops-records-should-be-open-public-opinion

    Consequently they would not be available to Patterico.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  592. Patt’s Pont’s is a veritable cesspool of disinformation. The host who you are very familiar with his/her writing should be ashamed. I apologize for ever questioning you.

    JD (871bc6)

  593. rsxfan, everyone is biased! I am biased, you are biased. a slave advocating for freedom of slaves is biased. Understandind someone’s bias is a means to understanding the person, not a reason to discount the merits of their arguments.

    felipe (6100bc)

  594. Fair enough Calfed, shouldn’t that information be put in the article in the interest of honesty?

    I have said previously, let the facts lead us.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  595. JD, why are you still wearing kid gloves? Tell us what you REALLY think. Just kidding, please don’t

    felipe (6100bc)

  596. lol at JD in 592,

    JD, just answer my earlier questions, why the deflection tactic?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  597. “Wait a minute isn’t Patt an attorney? Isn’t he/she supposed to not be biased and follow the facts wherever they may lead?”

    This is his blog, not a courtroom. Grow up.

    SPQR (768505)

  598. Felipe in 593,

    I agree with you, we are all biased, however a good writer/blogger/reporter puts his/her bias away and reports.

    Didn’t happen in this article, in fact the author put his/her bias into it.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  599. 597,

    So since you introduced it,

    Does he/she prosecute the same as he/she blogs? I’m curious.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  600. JD! Two apologies in one day? What is it, Christmas?

    felipe (6100bc)

  601. Fair enough Calfed, shouldn’t that information be put in the article in the interest of honesty?

    I have said previously, let the facts lead us.

    I think that most people understand that Personnel records are generally not public. Were you really ignorant of that fact?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  602. BTW, rsxfan, what is the officer who shot the dog’s name, if you know?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  603. “I think that most people understand that Personnel records are generally not public. Were you really ignorant of that fact?”

    You can’t make this level of stupid up.

    So what you are saying that since one party has records that are public, and in your mind, the other party is not then it’s a fair article?

    Yeaaa, OK

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  604. “BTW, rsxfan, what is the officer who shot the dog’s name, if you know?”

    Isn’t it in the article? Isn’t this writer all about telling the truth?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  605. Calfed, you win the “worst grammar” award for today.

    felipe (6100bc)

  606. For someone so familiar with Patt’s Pont’s, you don’t seem to be aware of the basic rules around here.

    JD (871bc6)

  607. 606,

    Fair enough JD. List them and if reasonable I will certainly comply since it is a private website.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  608. 604.“BTW, rsxfan, what is the officer who shot the dog’s name, if you know?”

    Isn’t it in the article? Isn’t this writer all about telling the truth?

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 7:41 pm

    If you want people to answer your questions (like I try to) then you should consider answering their questions – or are YOU deflecting?

    felipe (6100bc)

  609. filipe,

    My grammar sucks worse.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  610. Blog rules (as they were told to me):

    1. We don’t talk about FIGHTCLUB!

    2. WE DON’T talk about FIGHTCLUB!

    felipe (6100bc)

  611. “It must be fun to be threatened for doing your job — trying to arrest a violent suspect — while some jerk tries to interfere with you. Where can I apply for that job?”

    Nope no bias in this article at all.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  612. If you were so familiar with Patt’s Pont’s, you would know that trying to drag his/her job into these discussions is one of the most prominent. But you are familiar with his/her blogging, so you already knew that.

    JD (b63a52)

  613. 611.“It must be fun to be threatened for doing your job — trying to arrest a violent suspect — while some jerk tries to interfere with you. Where can I apply for that job?”

    Nope no bias in this article at all.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 7:50 pm

    rsxfan, that is not bias; that is irony. Our host was subjected to a jerk who tried to interfere in just that way.

    felipe (6100bc)

  614. rsxfan, I don’t believe that the police have released the name of the officer.

    Just so I understand your point, since public employee’s personnel records are not public, are you suggesting that Patterico omit any reference to Rosby’s arrest record?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  615. Felipe – since this individual is so familiar with Patt’s Pont’s, he/she was already familiar with how ironic that statement was.

    JD (b63a52)

  616. 611.“It must be fun to be threatened for doing your job — trying to arrest a violent suspect — while some jerk tries to interfere with you. Where can I apply for that job?”

    Nope no bias in this article at all.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 7:50 pm

    rsxfan, that is not bias; that is irony. Our host was subjected to a jerk who tried to interfere in just that way.

    So it makes it OK for him/her to do the same? Or your “host” is none better?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  617. JD with the quick strawman defence.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  618. I don’t think rsxfan is going to be asked to bring the potato salad to the next Mensa picnic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  619. How did he/she do the same? Did Patt try to interfere with the arrest of a violent suspect?

    JD (b63a52)

  620. You are so right, JD. I stand corrected.

    felipe (6100bc)

  621. The great thing about being a baseball fan while watching your favorite team, you have lots of time in between.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  622. 619,

    JD be more specific, or are you trying to fool the class that you are smarter than you actually are?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  623. The “strawman defense” was made popular (to the opponents)in the NFL by the Detroit lions of 1996, when they lost 18 games even though the were only 16 regular season games that year.

    felipe (6100bc)

  624. Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    Notice the bias in his/her article by setting up the person that has the dog, arrest record information etc.

    So Patterico if you are an honest person I assume you will be posting the record of the officers in question. Surely they have never done anything wrong, ever?

    If you are an honest journo, which I suspect you are not, you will follow the facts where they lead instead of following the ones that suit your personal view.

    Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    No bias. None. Zero.

    I am not trying to persuade the class of anything. I am just mocking you.

    JD (b63a52)

  625. hehehehehe,

    Now that was friggen hilarious filipe.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  626. JD, mocking me how? By stating things I have pointed out as what I see as facts?

    Good going, you’re the master. Do you work for the Zimmerman prosecution?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  627. Not sure why that was a split post, my apologies.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  628. The nosetackle was reported to have asked the DC, “You sure about this, coach”?

    felipe (6100bc)

  629. Heading to bed.

    Hope everyone wakes in the morning with their dreams.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  630. Facts don’t seem to be very relevant to you. It is fairly common knowledge that personnel files are not public, yet that is exactly what you are demanding of Patt. Your ver first comment led with Patt being officially the dumbest blogger on the web, and calling him/her dishonest. Now, my mockery, which sails right over your head, means I may be part of the GZ prosecution team? You are apparently a fine reader too.

    JD (b63a52)

  631. Ok, I guess we all understand rsxfan now.

    Patterico’s article was unfair because he did not include personnel information which is not available for an officer that has not been identified.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  632. “Pearls before swine, JD” Yes, it actually says that in the bible. Wait, is that lightning I just heard?

    felipe (6100bc)

  633. I tried to be nice.

    JD (b63a52)

  634. I tried to be nice.–JD

    There is a first time for everything 🙂

    Calfed (5b899d)

  635. Oh, and for you felipe, grammer king, allow me to rephrase…

    … for an officer who has not been identified. 😉

    Calfed (5b899d)

  636. Calfed, JD, Felipe, what the hell is there about shooting a dog that brings these people out?

    rshfan, get a clue, you are being mocked; the “apologies” were part of the mocking. Patterico wrote a post on his blog expressing his personal opinion about some idiot acting in a way that got his dog shot. His opinion concerned the actions of that idiot. The Officers names and past history were not addressed because that was not what he wanted to talk about. If you want to talk about that, or iIf that post and his opinion don’t meet your standard for objectivity, then go somewhere else or start your own blog where you can talk about whatever you want however you want to talk about it.

    That clear enough for you?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  637. Calfed, JD, Felipe, what the hell is there about shooting a dog that brings these people out?

    I was thinking the same damn thing, Lb.

    Mexican Police Chief murdered—53 comments

    S–tbird’s dog shot after it attacks police—600+ comments.

    Guess you can never know what will inflame the reading public.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  638. he’s another twit troll who thinks his own ignorance is some unrefutable evidence of his troll points.

    SPQR (768505)

  639. Awwww,lbcatcher! Where are we going to find another prize like rsxfan? We would have let you pet him! Just kidding.

    Look, I was honestly in agreement with his point about truth in blogging. Seriously, we did make an effort to address some of the questions posted. JD was, in fact, nice. Calfed provided proof for his position in an act of good faith. We even, for the most part did not return scorn for the libel directed at the host. What more was lacking? Don’t answer that.

    felipe (6100bc)

  640. Anyway, can’t we show appreciation for rsxfan’s novel innovation, “the strawman defence”? It deserves the “I work here is done” award.

    felipe (6100bc)

  641. #635 Calfed

    LOL!

    felipe (6100bc)

  642. Calfed provided proof for his position in an act of good faith.

    Well thank you for that, felipe…even if I did use poor grammar while doing it 😉

    Calfed (5b899d)

  643. #533, felipe, 7/7/13 @5:28pm:

    Sorry I took so long to get back to you. No, Steve responded appropriately, I respect him, we just differ on the dog shooting issue. He goes to his church and I go to mine.

    And, no, it wasn’t a challenge question, it was an attempt to reminisce about my time working the flight line at Yokota.

    ropelight (20622b)

  644. Make that #553. Dyslexia strikes again.

    ropelight (20622b)

  645. @ropelight #643

    Roger that. I am guilty of over thinking the matter. You are a better man than I.

    felipe (6100bc)

  646. I have read this blog since at least 2004, and I have never seen anyone refer to this place as Pont’s, or the host as Patt. Additionally, not knowing he/she suggests that it’s claimed familiarity is nonsense.

    JD (b63a52)

  647. Yes, this “he/her” was a “dead” (pun intended) give away. As was our avoiding the use of the appropriate pronoun for Patterico. It was ingenious, IMO, of Calfed to ask for the unidentified officer’s name.

    felipe (6100bc)

  648. O.K, I meant “his/her” and “he/she”. Satisfied, Calfed? 😉

    felipe (6100bc)

  649. Badge licking authoritarians. I denounce you!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  650. Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 5:43 pm

    Piss off little moronic troll.

    peedoffamerican (c1890a)

  651. “He said something about our blogger, waaaaaaaaa, waaaaaaa!”

    Grow up,geez. I simply through out what I thought of his/her article.

    It was an extremely biased piece, get over it. If group think is what is intended on the comment board, why bother having one?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  652. Go suck some arugula, drive-by troll. Everybody’s got your number now.

    nk (875f57)

  653. Have you bothered to read the comments in just this one thread? If that is groupthink, Michael Moore is fit.

    JD (db0979)

  654. 633

    The group think comment was in response to the reaction of the “regulars” of this site. felipe being the exception at one point.

    JD, take a look just above you, group think at it’s finest. Label the person a troll for not falling in line. Very Alinsky like.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  655. Waaahh, I want atteeeention!!!!

    raw sex fan (875f57)

  656. You are not a troll for not falling in line. You are a troll because you led with dishonesty, and proceeded to double and triple down from your failed narrative.

    JD (fdc846)

  657. 656

    Stating ones opinion of an article/blogger equates to dishonesty how?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  658. Who are “the regulars”?

    Calfed (5b899d)

  659. rsxfan – Do you smoke a lot of weed?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  660. This is how you led off ….

    Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    Notice the bias in his/her article by setting up the person that has the dog, arrest record information etc.

    So Patterico if you are an honest person I assume you will be posting the record of the officers in question. Surely they have never done anything wrong, ever?

    If you are an honest journo, which I suspect you are not, you will follow the facts where they lead instead of following the ones that suit your personal view.

    Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    I do not expect you to see the mendacity contained therein. Nor do I expect you to understand why your attacks on the host, his/her job, his/her honesty, and your desire for more context than would be available would strike others as dishonest.

    JD (b63a52)

  661. 660 Ask JD, I’m sure he/she can give you a full run down.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  662. 662 So your suggesting my views are dishonest simply because yourself and others disagree with them, got it.

    Your not liking what I had to say about it in no way changes the fact it was a piece written with substantial bias. And now that I know the author is a DA I can see where the bias in blind favor of the Police comes from.

    I prefer the author give the facts from a none biased perspective, it makes for more believable reading. Now going forward anything I choose to read by this offer will always have that lingering over it.

    Good journalist don’t have that problem, and we need more good ones.

    Tell the story with the highest level of truth, even when it’s negative towards your own views.

    Like I said earlier the officers in question may have been completely in the right, but I can’t tell that from this authors writing.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  663. author*

    Man do I need some coffee today.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  664. 660 Ask JD, I’m sure he/she can give you a full run down.

    You used the term. It is only fair that you identify who you mean by “the regulars”? I know what a stickler you are for fairness.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  665. Now going forward anything I choose to read by this offer will always have that lingering over it.

    I thought you were already familiar with Patt’s Pont’s.

    It seems your objection is that the offer did not include information that you would like to see, that is not avaialble to the public, and based on that, you declared the offer the dumbest blogger on the web. Yet, it is others who are biased.

    JD (b63a52)

  666. 639.Calfed, JD, Felipe, what the hell is there about shooting a dog that brings these people out?

    I was thinking the same damn thing, Lb.

    Mexican Police Chief murdered—53 comments

    S–tbird’s dog shot after it attacks police—600+ comments.

    Guess you can never know what will inflame the reading public.

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 7/7/2013 @ 8:37 pm

    What’s there to say about the Mexican police chief getting murdered with the aid of this administration? We’re all on the same sheet of music. Other than brainstorming about how to get Eric Holder and Barack Obama into the hands of Mexican prosecutors there’s not a lot to be said on the subject.

    Here, though, there is disagreement in part fueled by your inability to stay on the same sheet of music. Earlier you said this was your bottom line, after discussing dog cases in general:

    536. …In the end, the douche-bag who showed up at the scene of a barricaded armed robbery suspect with his radio blaring like it was some sort of block party, refused to turn his radio down, and then took his 130 lb Rottweiler out of his car and paraded it around like he was showing his prize bull at a 4H show is responsible for what happened to his dog.

    Comment by Calfed (5b899d) — 7/7/2013 @ 11:17 am

    At #638 Lbcatcher writes:

    Patterico wrote a post on his blog expressing his personal opinion about some idiot acting in a way that got his dog shot.

    So I write, which is it? Is it the idiot that acted in a way that got the dog shot?

    Or is it the dog that acted in a way that got the dog shot?

    To cut to the chase, I suspect it was what the owner did that got the dog shot. Not what the dog did. Which is a shame because this wasn’t a really difficult dog to deal with.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  667. To cut to the chase, I suspect it was what the owner did that got the dog shot. Not what the dog did. Which is a shame because this wasn’t a really difficult dog to deal with.-Steve57

    Actually, it was what the owner didn’t do–secure it–that caused his dog to be shot.

    And I’ve long since dismissed your ability to determine whether the dog was vicious or difficult to deal with based on viewing a few seconds of shaky video.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  668. Steve Steve Steve. Do you really think that the actions/inactions of the idiot aren’t responsible for the dog acting the way he/she/it did?
    You sure make it hard to take anything you say seriously.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  669. In a way, I do admire that steve is sticking to his guns, but some of the aspects he is sticking to are pretty nutty.

    I guess Steve is an expert on dogs, too, to the point where 130 pound rottweilers are not “difficult” based on a snippet of video that includes the dog behaving aggressively. Must be nice to be such an expert on every topic. Unfortunately, the police are only human and I think after all this heated discussion it’s clear no one can show a clearly better (less risky and safer) alternative to how they handled this.

    That wouldn’t be so clear had this not been a hotly contested thread, so my thanks to the steves and rsxfan for not failing mildly.

    Dustin (303dca)

  670. Yes, Calfed, I know. But I remain curious to know why you simultaneously insist on the fact that cops should not be expected to be experts on dogs, it’s a huge imposition that you should even make the effort to learn about dogs. You and Lbcatcher are in the business of dealing with people, not dogs, so I should shut up.

    Yet at the same time you dismiss the possibility I or anyone else can tell something about that dog that you can’t. Well, which is it? Are you the experts on dogs or not?

    All I can say after watching the video is if that’s the bar you guys set for shooting dogs then I’m glad cops don’t frequent the same dog parks I do. There’d be dozens of carcasses scattered across the lawn on practically every afternoon out of “officer safety” concerns if that’s the kind of fright a dog has to put into you guys to start shooting.

    You think I’m splitting hairs when I distinguish between a fear biter and a vicious dog. No, I’m not. In the first case I’m talking about a dog that loses it’s bite inhibitions when it panics. In the latter instance I’m talking about a dog that has not bite inhibitions when it wants to assert its dominance.

    Both need to be put down. But they’re different dogs. They’re also rare. Most dogs don’t willingly bite people, and when they do they don’t bite as hard as they could. They really just want the person stressing it to back off.

    Do you know why this dog snapped and lunged at the officer? I do. It didn’t want to bite the guy. The dog just wanted to show the guy what he had to work with if he didn’t back off. In fact, when it comes to restraint the dog showed more of it than the cop.

    But I expect you to simultaneously insist you can’t be bothered to learn about dogs while insisting you know better than anyone else when dogs need to be shot.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  671. 670.Steve Steve Steve. Do you really think that the actions/inactions of the idiot aren’t responsible for the dog acting the way he/she/it did?
    You sure make it hard to take anything you say seriously.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/8/2013 @ 11:02 am

    I separate the actions of the idiot owner from the actions of the dog. I’ve said before that the owner was an a**hole of the first order, but surprisingly the dog wasn’t.

    Dustin says:

    I guess Steve is an expert on dogs, too, to the point where 130 pound rottweilers are not “difficult” based on a snippet of video that includes the dog behaving aggressively. Must be nice to be such an expert on every topic.

    I say I’ve been around dogs enough to know when he snapped at the officer he didn’t miss by accident.

    Whether that makes me a know-it-all I’ll leave to the people witnessing this.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  672. Steve57…trying to keep you honest on this issue is becoming a full time job. You have misrepresented my comments again

    Yet at the same time you dismiss the possibility I or anyone else can tell something about that dog that you can’t-Steve57

    I didn’t dismiss the possibility that you or anyone else “can tell something about the dog” that I can’t…I dismissed your ability to determine whether the dog is vicious or dangerous based on a few seconds of shaky video.

    You think I’m splitting hairs when I distinguish between a fear biter and a vicious dog. –Steve57

    I referred to your hair-splitting when you made this comment:

    “I said the dog wasn’t vicious. That isn’t the same thing as saying the dog wasn’t potentially dangerous.”

    I consider the difference between “vicious” and “dangerous” in this context to be hair-splitting.

    Do you know why this dog snapped and lunged at the officer? I do. It didn’t want to bite the guy
    –Steve57

    This is an example of your hubris…you now claim to know why the dog did what it did. Really? You can tell us what the dog was thinking from a few seconds of video? I’m doubtful of anyone who claims this kind of omniscience.

    I believe the dog didn’t bite the officer because the officer reacted quickly and withdrew his hand before the dog got his teeth into him.

    But I remain curious to know why you simultaneously insist on the fact that cops should not be expected to be experts on dogs, it’s a huge imposition that you should even make the effort to learn about dogs. –Steve57

    This is yet another example of you ascribing to me comments which I have not made. I just think it is unrealistic for you to expect officers to attain the level of “dog clairvoyance” which you claim to possess.

    Steve, it is becoming increasingly clear that what is driving you is not any additional facts or arguments, but simply your need to get the last word in.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  673. Calfed, based upon what special expertise do you so dogmatically (pun intended) damn any course of action that doesn’t involve shooting dogs?

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  674. I understand it’s easier to just shoot the dog.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  675. Yes, Calfed, I know. But I remain curious to know why you simultaneously insist on the fact that cops should not be expected to be experts on dogs, it’s a huge imposition that you should even make the effort to learn about dogs. You and Lbcatcher are in the business of dealing with people, not dogs, so I should shut up.

    Yet at the same time you dismiss the possibility I or anyone else can tell something about that dog that you can’t. Well, which is it? Are you the experts on dogs or not?

    I don’t know how you can say that we dismissed the possibility that someone can tell something about dogs that we can’t. Even If that were true, it wouldn’t mean that we are an expert on dogs or not an expert on dogs, it would be irrelevant to our expertise on dogs. I consider myself an expert on dui arrests. Calfed may have more expertise than I do; Dustin may also be expert on those duis but not know as much as Calfed and I, yet all three of us are experts on dui arrests yet none of us can watch a 4 minute video of someone driving down a street weaving from side to side and decide that the person was DUI.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  676. 675 and 676,

    675 You really do come to conclusions based on nothing more than wanting to further your argument. Calfed has never damned any course of action that would help prevent shooting a dog. He has mocked your certainty about why the dog did what he did.

    All the way back at the beginning of this thread, one of the first things I mentioned about why cops didn’t particularly like shooting dos was the fact that it is a major league pain in the butt to deal with all the paper work. Quit making stuff up out of whole cloth.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  677. Lbcatcher, dogs are pretty expert at working their jaws. You police officers see a dog that tried to bite someone. I see a dog that could have bit someone if it wanted to. It didn’t want to.

    I could have worked with this dog, and if I were on the scene I would have, but unfortunately I have to worry about getting gunned down by a nervous cop.

    Had I offered, would any of the LE types let me intervene?

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  678. Lbcatcher, what I’m certain of is the dog didn’t want to bite.

    I’m sorry this has gotten so personal. But I honestly don’t believe the dog needed to be shot. I would have acted on that belief had I been on the scene.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  679. Calfed, based upon what special expertise do you so dogmatically (pun intended) damn any course of action that doesn’t involve shooting dogs?–Steve57

    More sophistry, Steve? You are the one who is in the damning business. You have made very extravagant claims for your ability to do a Vulcan mind-meld with the dog through video and have insisted that the dog had no intention of biting the officer and therefore the officer had no need to shoot the dog. You have damned the officer for not having your dog-whispering abilities.

    My argument is much more straightforward and reality based. The officer had to make a decision based on what was happening right in front of him and did not have the same opportunity you did to watch the video over and over again to decide that the dog wasn’t going to bite anyone.

    I can not impugn his motives, as you have done, for shooting the dog. You have presented no evidence, other than your claimed canine clairvoyance (alliteration intended), that the dog wouldn’t have bitten the officers or someone in the crowd.

    Look through these pictures for a graphic display of what happens when a dog does bite and ponder what might have happened if your ability to predict a dog’s behavior isn’t all that you claim.

    http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/

    Calfed (5b899d)

  680. Yeay, Calfed I know what a dog can do if it really wants to bite. It’s pretty freaking gruesome.

    What is your point, if you imagine you have a point?

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  681. My point is this…that is the reality of dog bites.

    What you have posited is the fantasy that you can look at a short video and know what a dog is going to do.

    Never met the dog, never touched the dog, never talked to the owner of the dog…but you see a video and imagine that you know what the dog is thinking. Utter fanatsy.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  682. “Calfed, based upon what special expertise do you so dogmatically (pun intended) damn any course of action that doesn’t involve shooting dogs?”

    Steve57 – He has explicitly stated quite the opposite you pompous self-absorbed putz but you are too blinkered to see it. Instead you are too busy attributing views to people they do not actually hold while creating mythical scenarios for how you might have handled things differently with the benefit of perfect hindsight, while yet again confusing fact with opinion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  683. Calfed, I understand you very well.

    When it comes to showing restraint and demonstrating good judgement, I witnessed a dog doing better at both than a Hawthorne cop.

    It got shot.

    You see, I’m still unclear on what would have constituted sufficient provocation for that dog to bite.

    What I’m not unclear about is what constitutes sufficient provocation for you to justify a shooting.

    Which is not much. Certainly less than would cause that dog to bite.

    Consequently I can’t allow you on my carpet. You’re just not civilized.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  684. Steve @679 I’m not sure you want a discussion. How the hell do you come the conclusion that you might get gunned down? Unless you act aggressively toward an Officer with a weapon, you are perfectly safe.

    Intervene? Let’s see, we have a known problem (Susp) who has already filed lawsuits against the HPD, a dog who tried to bite (twice). Then some guy standing around wants to get involved and show all these experienced Officers how to do the job they have been doing for years. I don’t think so. Second thought, maybe you would need to worry about getting shot, but not by a “nervous” cop(joke).

    680 It’s not personal for me until you misquote or wrongly paraphrase me. I also don’t care for it when you ascribe motives or thoughts to me that I don’t have or never said. You have been doing that the entire thread to me, Calfed, JD, Dustin, Felipe, Daleyrocks and others. When called on it, you blithely ignore it and continue on.
    When something factual is pointed out to you, you don’t acknowledge it, you go back to telling us how you know what that dog is doing/did/going to do.

    682 Perhaps you should take gruesome into account when you criticize cops for shooting a dog.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  685. 685 apparently handcuffing his owner is justification for him to bite.
    Trying to bite got the dog shot. I thought you watched the video?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  686. 685 I missed it a second ago, “When it comes to showing restraint and demonstrating good judgement, I witnessed a dog doing better at both than a Hawthorne cop.

    It got shot.”

    Gotta love it. What would bad judgment have gotten it, a beating first then shot?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  687. 684.“Calfed, based upon what special expertise do you so dogmatically (pun intended) damn any course of action that doesn’t involve shooting dogs?”

    Steve57 – He has explicitly stated quite the opposite you pompous self-absorbed putz but you are too blinkered to see it. Instead you are too busy attributing views to people they do not actually hold while creating mythical scenarios for how you might have handled things differently with the benefit of perfect hindsight, while yet again confusing fact with opinion.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2013 @ 3:01 pm

    I’m curious why you think I’m speaking mythologically? Only police officers deal with animals?

    What’s true is that only police officers can shoot animals without significant consequences.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  688. 689 DId you mean mythically?

    Not true, animal control, farmers, ranchers, and citizens can shoot to put down a sick, injured or dangerous animal. Better be sure of what you’re doing though, there will be questions, although not as many as when a cop does it.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  689. Steve57, there is a word for the type of thinking that believes fervently that one can look at a short video of a dog attack and believe that one can know what the dog is thinking…dementia.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  690. The reason daleyrocks said you spoke mythically is because you made stomaching up to fit into your mind set. Read it in context.

    You made up the following, “Calfed, based upon what special expertise do you so dogmatically (pun intended) damn any course of action that doesn’t involve shooting dogs?” therefore that is a mythical scenario.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  691. Something not stomaching

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  692. 690.689 DId you mean mythically?

    Not true, animal control, farmers, ranchers, and citizens can shoot to put down a sick, injured or dangerous animal. Better be sure of what you’re doing though, there will be questions, although not as many as when a cop does it.

    Comment by Lbcatcher (61737c) — 7/8/2013 @ 3:30 pm

    This is true and I believe it’s why I mentioned I carry OC spray in the first place.

    I’m totally willing to put down a dangerous animal. I’m totally buying it. Dangerous animal. Lethal force.

    I’m just not seeing it here. I’m not making things up. Do you not see the dog hesitating in the video?

    I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of no s*** dog attacks and this isn’t it.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  693. “Calfed, I understand you very well.”

    Steve57 – Is that why you keep attributing views to him he clearly does not hold or is it just to keep your argument clinic going?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  694. It may be as simple as letting Steve57 have the last word on this thread. That way he will know, for certain, that he has defeated all the dunces who are in confederacy against him.

    felipe (6100bc)

  695. Steve here is the problem, I respond to your comment that only cops can shoot dogs and cite examples of who else can. Somehow you turn that into a comment telling us that you carry OC spray and are perfectly will to put down a dangerous animal. I explain why what you said was incorrect and you turn it back into the dog wasn’t dangerous and he hesitated. Yes, saw that and I saw that same behavior from a pride of lions on Animal Planet.

    OK You’re not making up that you believe the dog was not attacking, that’s fine, nobody said you were. You aren’t making up that you think you could have controlled the dog, that’s super, nobody said you made that up, in fact a lot of the bias about your comment is based on the fact that you do believe that.

    What you do make up is what you say others said and or think, that’s not fine.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  696. felipe – That is Milhouse’s line. I don’t think he would be happy if Steve57 stole it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  697. Lbcatcher, I’d be ok it the police understood that if they’re going to deal with people 5 times out of 10 they’re going to have to deal with dogs.

    It’s the stiff necked refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation that bothers me more than any specific outcome.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  698. #698 daleyrocks

    I know! I liked it so much, I wanted to use it, too! Sincerest form of flattery, “dont’cha know”.

    felipe (6100bc)

  699. “It’s the stiff necked refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation that bothers me more than any specific outcome.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself, sir.

    felipe (6100bc)

  700. what we are willing to grant any authority, is narrowing;

    http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/08/Oopsie-IRS-Exposed-Online-Thousands-of-SS-Numbers

    narciso (3fec35)

  701. I’m curious, and I’m being serious, of those posting on this story has ties directly or indirectly to law enforcement?

    I’ll start. I’m an not in law enforcement, however I am indirectly connected via numerous other family ties.

    It’s an honest question, please be honest. I’m not asking you give up any personal information, just be honest about how you are connected to law enforcement, if at all.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  702. who*

    damn the “word sharks”

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  703. No connections, other than to the cop that gave me a seat belt ticket a few years ago.

    JD (dedac8)

  704. Fair enough JD, but aren’t you connected to this website, and isn’t the owner in law enforcement?

    I’m not calling you out, maybe I just misunderstood your connection to the site.

    As far as the seat belt ticket, just another battle lost years ago when it was fought but the politico won in the interest of the public safety.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  705. Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh dear Lord that is funny! First, the moron parks his car with loud music right next to a crap load of COPS! I count 6 squad cars! IDIOT! Then he gets out with his “attack dog!” MORON! Even the dudes filming are laughing at his pure mental retardation! Then he confronts the police…he actually walks TOWARDS the policemen hahahahaha! I can hardly breath I am laughing so hard. THEN, because he couldn’t roll up the windows of his car…because how then could we all hear his music that would lessen the spotlight that he is trying to shine on himself for all his neighbors right? Hahahaha, of douchebaggery is immense! Oh golly I can’t take it! Then the sadness comes, the attack dog jumps at the police and the police shoot the dog because who wants to get bit by a dog who’s jaw strength can crush a large police flashlight? So the policeman makes a split second call and shoots that poor dog that had the misfortune of being owned by a underdeveloped human being. Let this be a lesson..when you see the police…go the opposite direction. Nothing good can come from being near the police when they are looking for dangerous criminals. Duh. The ignorance and retardation is BRILLIANT! The police would have never shot a Poodle.

    MrNummyPants (6a021e)

  706. That seems a bit tenuous, but yeah. And by a bit tenuous I mean quite a leap.

    JD (8f669d)

  707. 707

    So you are connected to this person but not really, got it.

    It was a simple question, if you are simply a poster on his site you could have just stated so, if it’s someone you actually know a bit more than that level, then you could have actually stated so. Interesting you couldn’t just answer honestly. Your choice to be sure, but certainly “dishonest”.

    708 nice to see you are still going with the Alinsky attack method. You’re true to your teachings, congrats.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  708. Something just came to mind, nk are you in anyway connected to law enforcement?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  709. By your standard, anyone that comments here, or even reads this blog is connected to law enforcement. I have never met Patt in real life, so I don’t see what the point of your silly little for ha game was. And lets be clear, you were not asking for edification, you are trying to make some BS point.

    JD (8f669d)

  710. Troll the vapid Randroid comments, fa la la la.

    nk (875f57)

  711. I read Obama’s non-partisan twitter feed today. Does that mean I have a connection to the President? I am going to watch LeTour de France tomorrow. Does that mean I have a connection to Peter Sagan?

    JD (8f669d)

  712. 713 deflection much.

    I suspect you are a bit closer than a random poster on this site. Honesty would have worked better, but you chose to obfuscate. Whatever, your choice. I was being sincere in my question, you chose to be afraid to answer it honestly.

    712 I read your thread/blog and all I can say is holy cow! Seek medical attention is all I can give as a comment.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  713. I obfuscated nothing. I participate at this blog. Lots of people do. You are, so by your metric, you have a connection to law enforcement. My first comment here was in 2004, not that it makes any difference. You have already declared Patt to be the dumbest blogger on the web, after becoming intimately acquainted with his/her work.

    JD (8f669d)

  714. 715 you might want to work on your comprehension skills. Where did I “delared Patt to be the dumbest blogger on the web”?

    “intimately acuainted with his/her work.” Read a fair amount of yes, your description no. And even if I had, isn’t that the point he has for having a site for people to read?

    So you began commenting on this site back in 2004, fair enough, are you now friends with “Patt” from years of commenting? If so that is substantially different than simply being a person that comments on his site.

    It’s been intimated that you are a bit more than some person that comments on this site, hence why I am asking, and not that there is anything wrong with that if it’s the case.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  715. An inquisitive mind is … what makes a dog want to sniff butts.

    nk (875f57)

  716. It’s been intimated that you are a bit more than some person that comments on this site, hence why I am asking

    You are the one intimating that. Were you familiar with this blog, you would already know the answer. This is SOP mendoucheous twatwafflery.

    JD (b63a52)

  717. Your first sentence typed here …

    Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    You might want to work on your comprehension skills. Where did I “delared Patt to be the dumbest blogger on the web”?

    Weasel words rock.

    JD (b63a52)

  718. 717 Louis Pasteur was a person with a great “inquisitive mind”, so are you saying he liked to sniff dogs butts?

    The Alinsky in this one is, pretend, strong.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  719. 719 and like I said you might want to work on your comprehension skills, in particular reading.

    So explain to the class while up at the board where I said or “declared Patt to be the dumbest blogger on the web”?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  720. Where did I “delared Patt to be the dumbest blogger on the web”?

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/8/2013 @ 6:36 pm

    Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 5:43 pm

    And in comment at 5:43 pm he goes on to make gratuitous ad-hominem attacks.

    The stupid is strong in this one it is. Once the stupid side of the force you follow, forever dominate your path it will.

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  721. The dingleberry imperative, it is.

    nk (875f57)

  722. 722 You couldn’t find it either huh, or does your level of reading comprehension suck at the same level as JD?

    As for your suggestion of “ad-hominem”, sure to some degree with the first portion of my first comment, but the problem with the label you choose I is I did in fact go on to attack the authors article/position. You might want to look up what it actually means.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  723. 723 thanks for jumping in as soon as you perceived an ally comment; however your fascination with knives and past relationships is a bit disturbing, seek help.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  724. Yeah, it put “may” in there. Like I said, weasel words rock. The message was clear, from your first sentence. Everything that has followed has simply reinforced what we expected.

    JD (b63a52)

  725. 726 Translation, I chose to read it the way I wanted then couldn’t back it up with truth when called on it.

    So what was the “clear” message from my “first sentence”? It was “clear” so should be easy for you to post now.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  726. It is clear you were calling Patt the dummerest blogger on the web. That you chose a weasel word, may, so you could later pull a passive-aggressive oh lord no I would never say such a thing stunt doesn’t change the clear message.

    JD (b63a52)

  727. Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    Ad-hominem.

    Notice the bias in his/her article by setting up the person that has the dog, arrest record information etc.

    Ad-hominem.

    So Patterico if you are an honest person I assume you will be posting the record of the officers in question. Surely they have never done anything wrong, ever?

    Ad-hominem.

    If you are an honest journo, which I suspect you are not, you will follow the facts where they lead instead of following the ones that suit your personal view.

    Ad-hominem.

    Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    Ad-hominem.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 5:43 pm

    You’re entire statement, filled with
    Ad-hominem attacks, it is.

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  728. Translation – you are who we thought you were.

    JD (b63a52)

  729. 729-Yeah you really need to look up the term ‘ad hominem’ Yoda.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  730. 728 “It is clear you were calling Patt the dummerest blogger on the web.”

    No what is clear is your reading comprehension sucks. You only went for the “weasel word” defense after you realized you didn’t read my original comment correctly.

    729 Thanks for affirming you still have no idea what that term means, it’s appreciated. You do realize it would only be ad-hominem had I not actually went on to make my point about the article after making my snark commentary about the blogger? (Take your time, I know it’s not a real word and you might have to look it up in the urban dictionary.)

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  731. Meanwhile no one has been able to dispute my original commentary about the article, it’s biased.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  732. rsxfan, we did dispute your lame “original” commentary – you just chose to ignore it and fail to respond to any of it.

    SPQR (768505)

  733. You used your personal attacks in an attempt to undermine the authors credibility. That you glossed over the substance breezily doesn’t get you off the hook for your ad hom attacks.

    Good Allah.

    JD (b63a52)

  734. Watching it sniff around like a puppy searching for a scrap to gnaw at is kind of fascinating.

    nk (875f57)

  735. 734 and poorly I might add.

    735 even if you think I did, the author undermined his own credibility with the article itself.

    736 Seriously, knives, past relationships, and now puppies, seek help as soon as possible.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  736. Meanwhile no one has been able to dispute my original commentary about the article, it’s biased.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/8/2013 @ 7:31 pm

    BS. You asked for info on the cops, info that is not available to the public. Common knowledge. And you ignored the point that the offer was providing context for the incident, as opposed to the isolated viral YouTube clip.

    JD (8f669d)

  737. Now back to actual discussion,

    734,

    It’s obvious the author has a law enforcement slant, and that’s fine, but it does ruin to some degree his credibility when writing about an incident he did not witness, and from what I can tell does not have personal knowledge of.

    The same thing he did to the person in question in the article taken into custody, who I have already stated may in fact be a jerkoff, could be done to him.

    Think about it, how hard would it be to write this article in a similar fashion using known information about the author in the same manner he used? It would be wrong, and completely unfair.

    A lot of the media does it everyday. It’s wrong, and if he want’s to be a good right leaning journo then he should follow the truth wherever it may lead. He failed to do that with this article.

    And as I, we, have now seen, stating so makes you a hater. Sure I was harsh with my commentary, but how does that change the facts?

    I never heard of this person, by name, till the reactive defense by his followers. It caused me to see who he is, maybe I was wrong was my thinking. Now that I have it’s clear he too has issues, as we all do, if you frame them the way you need, like he did in this article.

    What I have learned from all this is, those on the right have a huge hypocritical problem, and that is really disturbing going forward since I am on the right as well.

    Truth is the only way to win. Playing in the manner they play only makes you a hypocrite, and this thread has shown the hypocrisy we have to defeat on our own side.

    Truth is the way to go.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  738. 738 So what you are saying is it should be as slanted as possible to fit your view of the situation, got it.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  739. So what you are saying …. I knew you were about to lie. It is a tell. Like Obama saying “let me be clear” or “it has always been my position” or Tye speaking.

    Oh, and you are a great Moby. You alternate between knowing the offer, just learning of the offer, making blanket assessments of his/her honesty, bla blah blah. It is transparently dishonest to anyone that reads your tripe. You are not called a hater because you did some truth seeking, you were treated in he e act same manner as you chose to engage in. Continuing with your levels of passive aggressive nonsense and not so veiled threats is pointless. You have proven yourself, quite well, in less than 24 hours, though really, after your very first comment. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn.

    JD (8f669d)

  740. rsx you are completely off the track. Why would you even come here if you find the posts so not to you liking or high standards of impartiality? Yesterday you came in lying and telling us that you are familiar with this place and then call the blogger “Patt” which in the several years that I have been lurking here I have never seen any else do. Today you come in asking questions of the “do you still beat your wife” type in an obvious attempt to get someone to say something you can twist and turn into something ugly. I think you are in the wrong group of people for that to work. Are you a Pre law student?

    Of course the post is one sided, he sees a person acting like an idiot and writes about it, not being kind to the idiot who got his dog killed. That is his opinion, that is why he started the blog. What the hell do you expect on a blog.

    There is no hypocrisy here, the owner has taken some stances that I don’t agree with and some that I agree with. He states his opinion and his opinions are strong and well reasoned. It is his blog. He does it the way he wants and does it quite well. The blog is often quoted and used as a source of reliable information at numerous other blogs and on TV news/talk programs.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  741. rsx you asked JD “It’s been intimated that you are a bit more than some person that comments on this site, hence why I am asking, and not that there is anything wrong with that if it’s the case.”

    If there’s nothing wrong with it, why are you asking?

    Is it any of your business?

    Does it change anything in the article or you asking just to elicit a response?

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  742. rsxfan – Do you believe Barack Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst president in U.S. history or does he still have a little way to go?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  743. daley this should be funny

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  744. Lbcatcher – I don’t even think it was one sided. The viral video was. This just post just provided a broader context, more information.

    JD (b63a52)

  745. The news article I cited set forth the criminal history of the dog owner and nothing about the personnel record of the cop.

    Why is this commenter attacking me, instead of the articles I cited?

    I don’t think that would be a fair attack, mind you, but at least it would be pointed more in the right direction.

    Signed,

    “Pont”

    Patterico (788520)

  746. A lot of the media does it everyday. It’s wrong, and if he want’s to be a good right leaning journo then he should follow the truth wherever it may lead. He failed to do that with this article.

    How did I do that?

    You are free to use these comments to do what you claim I did not: to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

    Start, please.

    Patterico (788520)

  747. I think you have to put this whole dog shooting business into context

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  748. I think to make rsxfan happy, we should have Trayvon Martin’s mother identify the dog’s screams.

    You know … for balance.

    SPQR (768505)

  749. Pont – Why can’t you present both sides of an argument, more like the unbiased journos at say MSNBC?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  750. Rico, how come your opinion pieces are not objective? Is it because you are the most horrible person in the world?

    Dustin (303dca)

  751. Second most horrible. I’ve been assured today that I’m the most horrible person in the world.

    SPQR (768505)


  752. Patterico may be officially the dumbest blogger on the web.

    See defition #2.

    Notice the bias in his/her article by setting up the person that has the dog, arrest record information etc.

    See defition #1 & #2.

    So Patterico if you are an honest person I assume you will be posting the record of the officers in question. Surely they have never done anything wrong, ever?

    See defition #1 & #2.

    If you are an honest journo, which I suspect you are not, you will follow the facts where they lead instead of following the ones that suit your personal view.

    See defition #1 & #2.

    Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    See defition #1 & #2.


    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 5:43 pm

    See defition #1 & #2. rdsuxfan

    ad ho·mi·nem
    [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
    2.
    attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    Teh stupid, strong in this one it is! Once down the stupid path you start, forever dominate your destiny, it will!

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  753. Signed,

    “Pont”

    Comment by Patterico (788520) — 7/8/2013 @ 9:20 pm

    Pont? 😆

    May I call you Pont, Patt? Read this blog a lot he does? How you are addressed, not know he does! His/Her? Yet your actual sex, he knows not, does he? Of the right, he claims to be. Spout the leftist talk, he does.

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  754. I’ve been assured today that I’m the most horrible person in the world.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/8/2013

    Be the deed great or small, do it right or not at all.

    Dustin (303dca)

  755. This Yoda guy is hilarious.

    Dustin (303dca)

  756. Thank you!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  757. Cows vs Dogs?
    Today was a great day. Lets not ruin it by arguing over your taste in women.

    As a brave cop who vastly overestimates his/her worth to society, you’d probably lobby for a change in procedure to allow you to shoot the cows if they so much as farted in a “hostile” manner, perhaps steaming up your fabulous ballistic goggles (apologies to any surviving current or ex-sweethearts) This may also explain why former cop Drew Peterson bypassed the procedural logjam and took matters into his own hands.

    They say psychos often start by killing animals. It gives them feelings of power and control.
    Did anyone notice any stray dogs in Drew’s neighborhood? You didn’t? Hmmmmmm…..

    Show of hands out there amongst the cops… ever wonder if that guy over there in blue was hiding something dirty? Did you know but were afraid to tell?
    None?
    Statistics say you served with, or are now serving with a criminal.
    Maybe the hotshot DUI cop who has double the annual tally of her closest “competitor” until she is suspected of bravely fudging; holding fingers over the vents on the breathalyzer, filling out forms in advance.. red eyes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol (oops it was a dry DUI stop). Ruh Roh
    Maybe like the guy up here in a small department who while making the world a better place was charged with following little teen girls around the State Beach; lying down nude in their path and rubbing lotion on himself; placing spycams in the girls restroom and then filming himself bravely choking it onto their sink.
    Maybe a even a guy who wants to roast a girl alive and eat her leg while she (bravely) has to watch; allegedly of course. Don’t want to offend the union bosses.

    In an unofficial poll, cops breakdown like this: 5% are throbbing weiner psychos and 5% all stars. The rest break down as 30% bad, 30% average, 30% good.
    The lower tier of the 30% bad apparently possess the proper attributes to go on to work for the police union. Of course after taking medical retirement for piles (caused by failure to ever unass a seat).

    Cops have groupies that are starstruck by shiny badges, guns and UNIFORMS! YaY! Groupies that dress up in their Freddy Mercury cop outfits, a pair of comfy kneepads, then get all sweaty posting inane obsequious comments in support of their heroes in blue. But Yay!

    Cops, and their lovers, sure do tend towards linear thinking.
    This thread has been a great illustration of the inflexible, yet worm-filled monolithic cop mind.

    (Go ahead, throw it back onto me… you’re just shouting into the mirror… your meds are behind it. Take 4 and call your Dr. in the morning)

    SteveG (794291)

  758. it’s poignant to think how there’s this handful of cops out there what have the faculty to understand how much esteem their colleagues have pissed away and how dizzyingly quickly

    for certain values of poignant

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  759. What name is this guy posting under here?

    “Picciano’s attorney presented lists of the officer’s awards and commendations, including a medal for saving the life of an 8-year-old girl.”

    steveg (794291)

  760. Pont., may I call you Pont?

    Clean up on aisle 759! Maybe send in guys that wear those cute white coats and carry those nice jackets for their guests.

    Pont, you really need to do something about your blog. It would be nice if it attracted a better class of troll! Really, when they can’t even bother to put on ‘goggles’ and see for themselves whether you be his/her, or he/she.

    Truth is the way to go.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/8/2013 @ 7:56 pm

    Teh irony is strong in this one it is! Tis a shame it is!

    Damn it Pont, A better class of troll I want, One that the difference between an offer and an author he/she knows that is.

    😆

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  761. This thread has been a great illustration of the inflexible, yet worm-filled monolithic cop mind.

    Irony much?

    (Go ahead, throw it back onto me… you’re just shouting into the mirror… your meds are behind it. Take 4 and call your Dr. in the morning)

    Comment by SteveG (794291) — 7/9/2013 @ 12:00 am

    Sounds like good advice! Physician heal thyself first.

    peedoffamerican (04dfe5)

  762. Those on the right, myself included, don’t need losers like you who can’t follow the truth other than what fits your own view.

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6) — 7/7/2013 @ 5:43 pm

    A conservative, I am. Of the right, I am! A former conservative, I am! A republican, I am! Etc., etc., etc., until puke, I do! For 800 years, heard this I have! A dollar I wish I had, for every-time heard this I do! Retire then I could! Richest man in world, would be!

    Yoda (127915)

  763. Yoda, you seek Yoda! Powerful Jedi is he, powerful Jedi! To bed, I go now! Time for arguing with those strong in the stupid side of the force, I do not have!

    Yoda (127915)

  764. ah another genius. now you are smart enough to tell a dr what to do… you must be a cop.

    ever read about all the cops they found were doing illegal drugs… steroids? Now know why the cops in the gym had muscles on their temples even though they spent most of their workout jabbering like, well cops

    is that peed off or peed on… cuz it sounds like your panties are soaked again… fear does that to some people. its ok. its normal.
    Be brave. Making the world better one blog comment at a time can be scary

    steveg (794291)

  765. Apologies
    I forgot that the most favored posters here just call anyone who disagrees with them “mendouchous” and then declare victory.

    Mendouchous is like poo poo head only way more sophisticated and mature.
    I should try to learn how to speak like all the cool kids. And think like them and learn to nod my head and agree agree

    I rarely read Balko, but his notes on cop fashion are interesting. he wonders why cops wear jungle camouflage in downtown urban environments… i dunno,,, what do lemmings wear to run off the cliff? Take 16 clapping barking seals, do they all dress the same?
    I suppose camouflage is better than yellow unless you are guarding the taxi stand and although the cops that shot at the surfer in Torrance during the Doerner fiasco should be forced to wear clown noses for the rest of their careers, I doubt it will catch on.
    Not macho enough… oh. ding ding ding there’s the winner. Camouflage is macho, OK it looks stupid, completely without utility in front of the Wells Fargo, but the wearer feels tough. Perfect.
    or should I say fitting?

    steveg (794291)

  766. Hostile much?

    JD (b63a52)

  767. I don’t know what this thread is about.

    Sammy Finkelman (a4dbab)

  768. Sammy – That’s never been a barrier to you commenting before.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  769. JD @746, You’re right, I got into chewing on that moron

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  770. 515. …Instead of admitting your mistake, you began flooding the thread with tens of thousands of words of copypasta about about completely different incidents (which no one is defending).
    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 7/7/2013 @ 9:07 am

    I meant to get back on this.

    The problem is there are plenty of people who will defend the most outrageous police over reaction resulting in a dead dog.

    Other police officers.

    Earlier I linked to this video in which a Commerce City police officer, Robert Price, shot a dog was calmly sitting in its garage until they put it in a noose at the end of the catch pole.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/11/26/Colorado-Cops-Shot-Restrained-Dog

    I know the officer’s name because the Adams County AG has charged him with felony aggravated animal cruelty. Naturally the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police has come out in support of shooting dogs which are restrained on catch poles.

    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/01/16/police-union-calls-criminal-charge-in-dog-shooting-outrageous/

    “It is our opinion these officers did nothing wrong and are unfortunate victims of a sensationalized media event,” Violette wrote. “This matter should never have been referred to the district attorney’s office by the department. It is obvious to us that the involved officials felt the media and public focus being brought to bear on their decisions regarding this matter, and as a result found it easier to act in the manner they did rather than do the right thing in this case.”

    That reaction is emblematic of a police culture that needs to be reformed. And as many others besides me have noted, the police can either take the lead and institute those necessary reforms themselves, or people like me who are tired of this are going to take the matter out of their hands.

    Since this is the FOP’s idea of “doing nothing wrong” then obviously we can’t rely on the police to do it so it’s time to impose solutions from the outside. Which is exactly what’s happening in Colorado. In addition to the state prosecuting this officer the legislature has passed several laws mandating training standards for police officers to require them to learn how to deal with dogs in a non-lethal manner.

    It isn’t just that police shoot other people’s dogs all too regularly. It’s the attitude that police have that they should be able to shoot people’s dogs without repercussions. And really it’s about more than that as well. It’s about how little respect many police officers show the public they supposedly protect and serve. In Colorado people were already incensed about this due to video. One of the main reasons is because it contradicted the officers’ original story. Then they mislead the public so they can crowd them out of the courtroom? It’s like they never waste an opportunity to inflame the public against them. So unfortunately if it’s going to take some more very expensive lawsuits and a few more criminal prosecutions to get the police to notice they can’t run around shooting dogs for not very good reasons, then that’s what it’s going to have to take.

    As far as this Hawthorne shooting goes the police may well have handed Rosby the lawsuit of his dreams. I don’t know anybody who’s seen the video who isn’t disturbed by what these officers did for a variety of reasons. Usually because in their view the officers endangered the public by shooting. That’s generally the first reaction, followed by observing it wasn’t necessary to shoot that dog.

    The Hawthorne police have been circulating a second video which they say exonerates their officers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/second-video-dog-shooting_n_3536658.html

    I disagree. It supports the contention that the officers were right to arrest Rosby, but the I never disputed that. It adds roughly nothing to the idea that the dog itself provoked the officer into shooting. But when you watch in conjunction with the first video you can clearly see the guy who made the second video is roughly in line with the dog and the officers when they shoot it. Had the officer missed or had a shot overpenetrate and that second videographer could have easily ended up as the backstop for a bullet.

    Steve57 (7c82fc)

  771. Felipe, you’re right, we need to quit responding

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  772. I’m telling you…he’s pathological about getting the last word in.

    Calfed (5b899d)

  773. 774

    Last word.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  774. I hate break it to you, rsxfan, but we are talking about giving the last word to our beloved Steve57, not, ahem, you.

    But, on the fair chance that you understood that already ; good one!

    felipe (6100bc)

  775. “The news article I cited set forth the criminal history of the dog owner and nothing about the personnel record of the cop.

    Why is this commenter attacking me, instead of the articles I cited?”

    So what are your standards as a journo? Citing an article is OK, how about a source that would like his/her name private? Do you agree that is the same as an article you found that you admit is OK regardless of validity?

    Where is your personal line in reporting?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  776. I admit I didn’t read all the comments after signing off last night and only skimmed them.

    But I found this one, and chuckled.

    “rsxfan – Do you believe Barack Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst president in U.S. history or does he still have a little way to go?”
    daleyrocks

    11 minutes later

    “daley this should be funny”

    Comment by Lbcatcher

    Define surpassed.

    They are both progressive presidents. I would argue that they are only carrying on the progressive beliefs of the modern father of progressive POUTS, and if they have their way the destruction of our Great Republic. Does that make them the worst? In our minds yes, in theirs no.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  777. 776

    I admit I didn’t read all the posts since last night and just through it out there. Figured the words I chose fit both scenarios.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  778. threw*

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  779. Actually, I would like to see you and Steve57 “duke” it out. JD, Calfed, lbcatcher, and I would be most edified.

    felipe (6100bc)

  780. When in doubt cuddle under the arms of those stronger than yourself.

    Your choice I guess.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  781. Rsxfan – why are you so aggressively hostile ?

    JD (b63a52)

  782. You are apparently much more impressed with yourself than I am

    Calfed (5b899d)

  783. 783

    ‘why are you so aggressively hostile”?

    Why are you redundant?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  784. “You are apparently much more impressed with yourself than I am”

    OK, and you are apparently much more impressed with yourself than I am.

    So what is your point?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  785. put this dog down!

    Colonel Haiku (71375e)

  786. “put this dog down!”

    Translation, he’s not falling in line with our group think.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  787. whaddya know… a talking dog!

    Colonel Haiku (71375e)

  788. Interesting you chose the rank of colonel and yet you are simply a follower.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  789. It just wants to cuddle. NSFW (Boondock Saints clip)

    nk (875f57)

  790. rsxfan proves
    every dog has his day
    but now he’s my b*tch

    Colonel Haiku (71375e)

  791. ‘rsxfan proves
    every dog has his day
    but now he’s my b*tch”

    Feel free to explain for the class.

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  792. Wait a minute, colonel haiku,

    Didn’t I see you in the quarter finals of the Stolen Valor Competition on another site?

    rsxfan (aed4f6)

  793. The little troll thinks it’s entitled to ask questions. Like somebody who comes over to crap on your lawn and knocks on the door for toilet paper.

    nk (875f57)

  794. ah another genius. now you are smart enough to tell a dr what to do… you must be a cop.

    (Go ahead, throw it back onto me… you’re just shouting into the mirror… your meds are behind it. Take 4 and call your Dr. in the morning)

    Comment by SteveG (794291) — 7/9/2013 @ 12:00 am

    You are the one trying to give medical advice, I simply stated, “Physician heal thyself first”! Doesn’t sound like me giving medical advice, sounds more like telling you to “Shove it”.

    ever read about all the cops they found were doing illegal drugs… steroids? Now know why the cops in the gym had muscles on their temples even though they spent most of their workout jabbering like, well cops

    Ever read about all the doctors, firemen, accountants, secretaries, mailmen, garbagemen, foremen, cashiers, stockers, actors, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers doing drugs? The only muscle you seem to have is your mouth.

    is that peed off or peed on… cuz it sounds like your panties are soaked again… fear does that to some people. its ok. its normal.
    Be brave. Making the world better one blog comment at a time can be scary

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 7/9/2013 @ 1:36 am

    I fear no man, only God. Definitely not afraid of keyboard warriors like you that don’t know sh!t from Shinola!

    What happened? Did Popo catch you underage drinking and driving? Did he spank your little ass when you resisted and throw you in the drunk tank, and take away your lollipop? Or did he catch you trying to diddle your cousin, and make you stand out in cold while your little 2 inch weenie shriveled up to a half inch? There has to be something behind all of your hatred!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  795. Moby concern trolls are cute

    JD (b63a52)

  796. StevieG probably tried to get a job as a Police Officer and was rejected because he didn’t have the qualifications.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  797. StevieG,

    Are you tired of menial job you now have? I know it must be depressing to you, after all mop up man at a peepshow can’t be very satisfying.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  798. teh 800!

    Colonel Haiku (4eb2ae)

  799. Wait a minute, colonel haiku,

    Didn’t I see you in the quarter finals of the Stolen Valor Competition on another site?

    Comment by rsxfan (aed4f6)

    no you’ve got wrong guy
    I was teh guy who planted flag
    top of yo’ mama

    Colonel Haiku (4eb2ae)

  800. Miami looks like it will be subject to the same interference, LA just got out of;

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/09/3492011/justice-department-find-miami.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  801. I wish they would come to Chicago. The Chicago police are responsible for about 10% of the homicides and of the three most recent that I know two of the vicims were unarmed — in one the cop claimed that he thought the cell phone was a gun, in the other the man was shot in his car and the cops claimed he was trying to run them over even though all the police shots were through the driver’s window. The third was a teenager with a BB gun. The Chicago PD Office of Professional Standards is a joke.

    nk (875f57)

  802. ‘shirley you can’t be serious’ Chicago, the nirvana of gun control.

    narciso (3fec35)

  803. So what are your standards as a journo? Citing an article is OK, how about a source that would like his/her name private? Do you agree that is the same as an article you found that you admit is OK regardless of validity?

    The official language of Patt’s Pont is English.

    Speak it please.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  804. You no speaka da troll?

    SPQR (768505)

  805. We got concealed “in the marketplace” carry. Legislature just overrode Quinn’s veto. Illinois is now the fiftieth state.

    nk (875f57)

  806. On the other subject, narciso, Chicago is a disgrace. Only one in four homicides is solved. The killings are just numbers and, maybe, one sentence on the news or the newspapers.

    nk (875f57)

  807. Yes, but they will find ways to stall, we know McCarthy’s view on the subject.

    narciso (3fec35)

  808. “The Chicago police are responsible for about 10% of the homicides and of the three most recent that I know two of the vicims were unarmed — in one the cop claimed that he thought the cell phone was a gun”

    – nk

    They shot a guy in ABQ for waving a black plastic spoon around.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  809. just to watch him die

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  810. Test

    Colonel Haiku (399c43)

  811. Albuquerque, sheesh I’ve been to Albuquerque. As corrupt as Chicago and probably less competent PD.

    SPQR (768505)

  812. test testerson reporting for testing

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  813. Hey… IPhone works now.

    It is illegal
    To wave a black spoon around
    in New Mexico

    Colonel Haiku (399c43)

  814. Also for a woman to be unshaven in public.

    nk (875f57)

  815. Well Richardson dodged two indictments no,

    narciso (3fec35)

  816. ricky ricardo rubbing one for rubio….reportedly…in heaven

    pdbuttons (caf6d6)

  817. Albuquerque is a banana republic without any bananas.

    SPQR (768505)

  818. it makes up for it with the hatch chiles

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  819. roobs is a pandering lifeydoodle [insert word here what will shock and amaze your lifeydoodle friends]

    but he has great teeth he really does

    especially for a cubano mas authentico

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  820. Earlier Lbster? a retired officer responded to the other kinder Steve57’s post where Steve57 stated that LAPD records for the past 20 years showed a dog shot every two weeks in LA.
    I couldn’t find his post so I am just trying to convey the gist of it and any inaccuracies are mine not Lbsters and are unintentional.

    Lbster first said he’d worked for X number of years and dog shootings in his world were rare or non existent.
    This is great… and bad. Assuming LAPD’s numbers are correct, in the years past since Lb was on the job, it seems like the count has gone from zero over his 20 years to a current 2 per month… that chart looks awful.

    Next we did a little math exercise where we assumed 10,000 calls per day X two weeks or 14 days and came out with dog shootings being a minuscule statistic 140,000 calls over two weeks, one dead dog.
    Lb sounds like a salt of the earth person and unlike other posts I’ve made this is not a personal attack.
    These numbers seem to me to be reflexive defensive minimization.
    I think a curious person would ask how many of those 140,000 calls resulted in the discharge of an officers service weapon. And then compare.
    Perhaps the number is again minuscule, officers are regularly shooting up the town and all of them are now behind a desk signing off fix it tickets awaiting results on their inquiry. So be it, an honest search by men curious about truth.

    I am also very comfortable with cops shooting pit bulls on drug house raids… just don’t hit the wrong house or hit one with bad intel and then compound the blunder by shooting a 72 year old ladies pet chihuahua. Don’t try to get tactical advantage by going through the innocent neighbors yard and then stopping to shoot his tethered pet.
    Because a part of the public sees the news that “procedure was followed… blah blah blah” and think well maybe the ROE’s need to be adjusted towards not shooting innocent peoples dogs minding their own business on their own property.

    For some reason this line of thinking gets hoots of outrage and honest attempts by the other Steve to create a dialog where alternatives are considered,, some discarded, some tuned up a little… his attempt were met with a hyper defensive scathing criticism and personal attacks.
    It was a great illustration of the pack mentality pitted against someone who strayed off narrative.
    No one needs to be ashamed for hollering at me, I did what I did on purpose, I asked for it.
    I don’t think the other Steve deserved the mean-spirited mocking he got from all the hiding behind the keyboard warriors that peedoff so aptly described when he was trying to return my own behind the keyboard insults. And some of you owe the other Steve a big apology.

    Then there are the dead end pontificators who get such a hard on shooting Mrs. O’Dowd’s labradoodle that after they insult Steve57 they have to go straight home and bang out a set of 1/2 human fraternal twins
    both named Spot. You can tell them apart because one Spot moos, kicks and farts while the other Spot barks and humps Dads pillow while Dad and every other cop ever are out in the world bravely doing brave things better and ever more bravely while acting globally with courage 24/7/365/Infinity.
    Ban ’em Dan-O

    SteveG (794291)

  821. Remember, don’t smoke crack, kids.

    Dustin (303dca)

  822. compound the blunder by shooting a 72 year old ladies pet chihuahua.

    Ladies pet chihuahua, shoot, I will not! Blasters, civilized are not! For such game, required lightsaber is! Fileted and cooked, as killing is!

    Then there are the dead end pontificators

    Careful of word user must be! Patt’s Pont offense might take.

    Yoda (35b482)

  823. Poor mutt. Cops too trigger-happy. Owner of dog = idiot.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  824. Good one!
    So if we all live crack free lives we get to be like you?
    Crack is old news but the thought of being brave like you evidently just sent a whole generation sprinting toward a meth pipe

    and to pp’ed off and whining. No convictions on my record as an adult. I am very hostile as some guy whose online claim to fame is calling everyone mendouchous noted, so I’ve had to navigate things well to achieve that clean sheet.
    Shockingly I have made some enemies in this modest town, but my friends really like me because I will fight anyone and everyone for them, feed their chickens, pick up their (drunk) kids from that party, move their trees, order that rose bush, find guys to paint their house, and sit and listen to them when all they can say is “wtf is God doing to me?” over and over.
    I always bring more beer than I can drink and more tri tip than I can eat. Some of these people who love me are cops, some are defense attorneys, some are church leaders, teachers etc. so mostly the people that hate me just stfu and seethe until one day they stroke out and their Dr tells them they need to go do yoga and tai chi with the 80 year olds in the park.

    One thing I do admire about clever inventor of “mendouchous” or whatever his nameis; are the triathlons he does. I highly recommend that mendouchous tries the Spartan Death Race… or the Worlds Toughest Mudder because triathlons only really translate into two real world applications of strength and conditioning. 24 hours of mud, chafing, ice water, high altitude, sun and electric shocks sounds like a challenge by comparison.
    I was training, doing crossfit stuff, trail runs, doing 5 of the regular 10-12 miles TMudder races last year with an eye on maybe winning the 55 and older class when I tore a shoulder tendon navigating (poorly) rings that were suspended over muddy ice water, (should of let go right away when I missed the ring) but I highly recommend it to anyone looking to up the ante on their useful fitness

    Maybe you’ve noticed that in the moment I really despise people who gang up on the solitary voice.
    and to all y’all *bleep* you m*********** and good night.

    steveg (794291)

  825. No convictions on my record as an adult.

    So, some cop busted you as a juvie, and you hate cops. Got it.

    peedoffamerican (35b482)

  826. I wish all it took to be like me was a crack free existence, but you really need to avoid meth and bath salts too.

    Dustin (303dca)

  827. Have no idea who write this article got link from google but I find it absolutely hilarious that you start off with 99% of people hate cops and only 1% of the people will take the story as it is. You detail all the previous lawsuits and charges on the dog owner yet you leave out the endless investigation and suspensions of the officers bribery, corruption, abuse of power and assault charges against the officers specifically involved. Way too leave out one side of the story lol.

    Tony (f59e27)

  828. Cop shot a dog end of story there we’re 3 of them. You all know they have tasers too right? They could have just tazed the dog, kicked it, one of the 3 cops could have tackled it and restrained it, etc. There are endless of other ways to handle it yet the cop decided to use his abusive power and shoot the dog because he know there would be no repercussions from the police department because they can do whatever they want. In no way we’re any of the three officers in danger at any time, if you feel in danger for your life from a dog you shouldn’t be a cop period. Go back to security duty and eating donuts

    Tony (f59e27)

  829. Hey Tony, I’ll take the dog killer as a neighbor before the dog owner.

    mg (31009b)

  830. The dumb side I sense in you! Anger, fear, aggression… the dumb side are they. Once you start down the dumb path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

    Here is the path to the dumb side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

    Yoda (c1642d)

  831. For 830

    Yoda (c1642d)

  832. yet you leave out the endless investigation and suspensions of the officers bribery, corruption, abuse of power and assault charges against the officers specifically involved. Way too leave out one side of the story lol.

    Could you point us to where we can find that information, Tony?

    Steveg – love toughmudder, have done 3 so far. Will be doing # 4 and 5 this fall. Also, http://www.tri24.com

    JD (c07979)

  833. steveg @822

    The comments you reference start at 549. I wrote that “the agencies” that I worked at, It should have read, “the divisions” I worked in regard to the time with LAPD. This was in response to Steve 57 saying that 2 shootings a month made it commonplace. That could be true if it were in a smaller department, but not true with a department the size of LAPD because of the number of contacts made.

    As for Steve57, it was not that he disagreed that got him jeered and a reading of the thread will make that obvious. It was claims of expertise in knowing what the dog was thinking and what it would have done, it was his changing what people wrote, misquoting, and creating straw-man arguments that got him attacked. He made it personal which usually results in a personal response.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  834. Tony @830 That’s a great idea, perhaps a new specialty for police work designated dog tackler, short career path and minimal training.

    Lbcatcher (61737c)

  835. Pikachu don’t be picking on my paisans, Rubio is no better or worse then Flake or Heller, he seems to have followed Mel Martinez path to blanc mange

    narciso (342f74)

  836. Incontinent one. (from now on I’ll call you dribbles; the closet queen with a swollen prostate.)
    Lakeland Fla.
    Police preying on the weak.
    Bravely though

    mg:
    vote no to both, but if you have to choose the cop, get plexiglass windows on his side of your house in case he thinks he sees a rabid squirrel or something. There were a lot of bystanders around his last shooting (I do have to give the officer his due… he shot well. Imagine if he’d emptied the magazine and skipped rounds all over Hawthorne while barely nicking the Rottweiler)

    Dustyn. (I think this spelling fits you better.)
    Incomprehensible even by your standards.
    Put your Bambi jammies on and resume sucking..
    up.

    steveg (794291)

  837. roobs panders Mr. narciso

    he panders like a gazelle in the serengeti, in spurts of grace is how he panders

    everyone involved should wash their hands

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  838. Turn that frown upside down, steveg:

    A Chicago cop is driving home drunk after his shift. He runs a red light and hits two pedestrians in the crosswalk. One goes through his windshield, the other gets thrown fifty feet. The first pedestrian is charged with breaking and entering, the second with leaving the scene of an accident.

    nk (875f57)

  839. *

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  840. Dustyn’s one of the best Kimberlin critics out there. I’ve seen a couple of idiots out him with my info… it’s absolutely no skin off my nose to be associated with his comments. Funny you’re referencing him when you got defensive about your bizarre comments.

    Anyway, get help or don’t. It makes no difference to me because if it weren’t you trolling this place it would inevitably be some other nutcase. Cheers!

    Dustin (42cd91)

  841. My brother suggested I would possibly like this blog. He used to be entirely right. This put up truly made my day. You can not consider just how a lot time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

    Super Sonic Games (32b584)

  842. You’re actually a excellent webmaster. The website loading pace is incredible. It sort of feels that you’re doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve performed a great task on this matter!

    reizen (8a8d2b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4233 secs.