I read this story immediately after reading the post Whatever happened to Officer Friendly? by Dick Stanley.
Police in Hawthorne, Calif. are facing criticism after an officer was caught on video shooting and killing a dog after arresting his owner for shooting video on the street.The rest of the story could be watched in this clip, helpfully recorded by a third party:
Leon Rosby was reportedly walking back to his car from the dog park with his 2-year old Rottweiler Max, when he spotted a police barricade and decided to film them with his phone to make sure they weren't violating anyone's civil rights.
The man could be an obnoxious busybody, however it's hard to see in his actions something unlawful. Officer Friendly decided differently, with the results you have watched. And, of course, they decided to throw the whole readily available book at him:
After killing his dog, police arrested Rosby for Obstruction of Justice, playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers.I hope he gets a good lawyer. As for that crapola:
Fearing that the attacking Rottweiler would imminently bite the officers, one officer fired his duty weapon several times, striking and killing the dog.The officer that started the whole mess out of pure cussedness, richly deserves to be bitten by the dog (PBUH).
As Dick says in his post:
And we citizens increasingly are afraid of them. With very good reason.Yep. I guess I share the sentiment, and I am not thinking of USA cops at the moment...
Update: as you can see in the comments, there are some facts that make the obnoxiousness of the dog owner rise in my estimation. However, the gist of the matter remains: the cops overreacted.
Update 2 Another item (no, it doesn't clear Mr Rosby of his obnoxiousness, but shows what police is able to do when disturbed):
A statement from the Hawthorne Police Department detailed his alleged interference: "This interference included loud, distracting music (from the individual's vehicle), and his intentional walking within close proximity to armed officers, while holding an 80-pound Rottweiler on a long leash-line," the statement said."Close proximity"? But the man has never got close to the cops before they approached him.
26 comments:
Sorry, I strongly disagree. I am with the cops in this one. I hate idiots who own a killing machine like that dog as if it were a pet. And the guy should have secured the dog inside the car or wherever. I have kids and I don't want them to be killed by those four legged monsters. Ownership of Rottweilers should be banned.
What a terrible incident. The poor dog. Cops should be much more collected and cool-minded than this. They are the ones supposed to keep law and order, not create a bogus crisis and then claim they acted in self defense!
Leaving the issue of unmuzzled Rottweiler aside (and I agree with you on that), can't we agree that the cops were the ones to start the whole altercation without any (legal or otherwise) reason for it?
I no longer subscribe to TNR, after they changed their format, became a gated community and are now serving as the written arm of MSNBC. I don't suppose you could copy and paste the article? I'm very interested in reading it but I'll be damned if I pay for it.
It appears to be so. It seems that the guy with the dog was merely being annoying. But that, as I see it, is not the issue. See, just because they arrested him (or shouted at him, or pushed him) you have a killer dog jumping at you. The problem is people with those dogs, not the police. It could have happened just because he bumped your car and you raised your voice and the dog reacted, it could have happened in many different ways.
And you know what? People who own those dogs are hoping that something like that happens. That is why they buy a dangerous dog instead of something more friendly and small. My theory is that owners of pitbulls, rothweilers, boxers, etc, were bullied at school or were bullies themselves at school. They want to get even or they want to continue instilling fear on others. And I can't stand them, because it is simply antisocial.
So the police overreacted with the guy, but the bullets were correctly shot at the dog.
Sent the text to the previously known e-mail and the one that appears in the registration. Let me know, please, if arrived.
Now we are in agreement. However, I should mention that the policemen in question were annoyed not by the dog but by the recording. Which makes me somewhat mad, after all this act of recording is protected by the law. A lot of cops ignore this law, unfortunately, and should be punished.
Actually according to the description of what happened (based on web searching the incident) the owner of the dog was actually at fault. For example look at http://patterico.com/2013/07/05/context-you-may-not-have-heard-for-the-hawthorne-dog-shooting-incident/ and http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_23578147/hawthorne-police-kill-dog-during-arrest-owner Patterico points out that the owner actually interfered in a police attempt to stop a robbery. His actions could have led to a tragedy and it was only after that that the police tried to deal with him. He had his dog trained to attack the police and that acted in self defense.
You can hear the people taping this video talking about the “blasting” music, saying “I can’t hear shit” because of it. You can hearthe 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.
Thanks but nothing, so far. I have an erratic email, though :)
Got it! Many thanks, Noga
Some of what the article in Daily Breeze says (Patterico only quotes it, not adding anything substantially new) changes the picture a bit, but not in general. After all is said and done, the whole altercation could have been avoided, if only the cops could overcome their vengeful ways. Again, the man looks definitely as an obnoxious busybody, but from here to what happened is a good distance.
OH, and another thing: one of the commenters on the Patterico post claims that the whole filmed altercation started after the robbery standoff was already resolved. Which again changes the whole picture quite significantly.
The point was that the police could not deal with the dog owner until they finished with the robbery but he appears to have attempted to interfere and make things worse so they would be unable to deal with the robbery.
Should the police have allowed the dog to attack them without defendin themselves? It is the fault of the dog owner not the police. The dog owner should have been arrested and once that was done, the dog would have attacked no matter what.
Well, this is precisely the point that is challenged by the commenter, who claims that the robbery incident was already over when the dog owner arrived.
I am not sure at all that the dog owner should have been arrested, at least not for the charges that the police quoted, like getting too close to them and such.
Again, I am not defending the man, who seems to be as obnoxious as they come and deserved a good few fines for his behavior. But an arrest? I doubt it.
Not by his recording of the incident but by his deliberately playing the music so loudly as to interfere with the attempt to deal with the robbery.
He put it on infinite loop before he got out of the car and went over to interfere.
My thoughts: This is a good example of how Officer Friendly is long gone, in that the guy seems to have been arrested only for photographing the cops. Which is legal but, as the cops like to say, "You may beat the rap, but you'll never forget the ride." That's all he was doing as far as I can tell. He even put the dog in the car.
But then the dog, obviously untrained by the way the guy was hauling him around by the leash (does any dog lover train his dog anymore?), clearly went out to attack the cop. Of course we don't know what the arrested fellow said to the dog. In my place I'd have shot the dog, too, though notice that the cop's aim was off as the dog lay kicking and rolling on the pavement.
I should add that I have no respect for people who own Rottweilers. They only do so to intimidate other people, since the dogs have a deserved reputation for violent attacks. I imagine that was in the cop's mind, too. Like I say, if I'm armed and an unleashed Rottweiller goes into jumping attack mode, I'd kill him, too.,
Guess I'm deafer than I thought. I can't hear the music, just the guys doing the video talking to each other.
This link worked for me:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/magazine/101716/islam-blasphemy-freedom-speech?page=0,0#
The video clip is at the end of the incident . Apparently there is more that was not shown starting from when he drove up and started getting in the way. According to the various writeups, people were talking about it in what was not shown.
Hm... yes, he is a pest, but saying that he done it to interfere with robbery treatment... that sounds like an exaggeration. But who knows?
Yes, I don't have an argument against offing the dog. Once it attacked, that is. But the attack was an indirect result of cops messing with the man, an obvious act of revenge.
There is music, but from the recording itself it is not clear how loud. The guys behind the camera mention that they cannot hear anything because of the music, though.
Well, I propose we wait till the justice does its thing.
That I agree with. As we have seen in many cases, the media tries to spin things to fit their agenda. I automatically tend to distrust what is usually printed by both sides. Often the pro articles are the best case for the anti side and vice versa.
Post a Comment