California Police Arrest Man for Video Recording, then Kill his Dog(photographyisnotacrime.com)
photographyisnotacrime.com
California Police Arrest Man for Video Recording, then Kill his Dog
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/07/01/california-police-arrest-man-for-video-recording-then-kill-his-dog/
24 comments
such bullshit that this was deleted when it was the top story on the frontpage. Clearly it's relevant to this site if it was upvoted to the front page!
Eh, I get where the admins are coming from, on the one hand I'm glad to have been told about this, on the other hand this seems more like Digg or Reddit content than HN content. If HN put outrageous things on the front page whenever they occur, we'd probably have nothing else left.
It's got 4744 upvotes and 7708 comments on Reddit atm. I agree with you entirely.
And Reddit appears to have just removed it from /videos. With that in mind I am now more open to the idea of it being on HN.
Still up on /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut - http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/comments/1hg9xa/haw... - and probably loads of other places. Memes will surface about it, etc. I agree that it is bad; I just think that Reddit is the perfect forum for such expositions. HN will just turn into Reddit if it goes down the "high emotional content" route, imo.
[deleted]
It was flagged to death by users.
Reddit is leaking again.
Feeding the troll here, but...
I find it highly relevant that every action private citizens perform online and while out in public is recorded, stored, and indexed en masse 'for your protection' while police intimidate and arrest citizens who do the same to them while they perform their duty as public servants.
I find it highly relevant that every action private citizens perform online and while out in public is recorded, stored, and indexed en masse 'for your protection' while police intimidate and arrest citizens who do the same to them while they perform their duty as public servants.
All I can say is that the dog owner failed to properly control his dog...
Sadly, the dog paid for it with his life.
Sadly, the dog paid for it with his life.
Think about it for a second before blaming the victim here... Police are advancing towards this guy to apparently illegally arrest him, one of them armed with what looks like an assault rifle.
Now you're suggesting that after getting the dog into the back of the car he should try to get in the front seat to raise the windows? (assuming they are power) How do you suppose the police will respond to that?
He had to make a split second decision while heavily armed men, having demonstrated no respect for the law or his civil rights, are advancing. I can only imagine my adrenal response would be in full gear and all that entails, while this man is helping them with the handcuffs.
In my opinion this citizen deserves our sincere respect and condolences for his dog, and good luck to him in his criminal defense and, if all goes well for him, civil suit against the city of Hawthorne.
Now you're suggesting that after getting the dog into the back of the car he should try to get in the front seat to raise the windows? (assuming they are power) How do you suppose the police will respond to that?
He had to make a split second decision while heavily armed men, having demonstrated no respect for the law or his civil rights, are advancing. I can only imagine my adrenal response would be in full gear and all that entails, while this man is helping them with the handcuffs.
In my opinion this citizen deserves our sincere respect and condolences for his dog, and good luck to him in his criminal defense and, if all goes well for him, civil suit against the city of Hawthorne.
I have viewed the video more than once, and it appears that the man is antagonizing the police.
Not a good idea in today's police state.
He knew that he was antagonizing the police, and this is why he placed the dog inside the vehicle.
The man is obviously not blind, and even a partially blind man (me) is able to see that the rear driver side window ot the car is opened enough to permit the dog's exit from the vehicle.
That the dog exited the vehicle from the passenger side rear window illustrates the extent of the dog owner's negligence. The dog had more than one choice of egress from the vehicle, which the dog owner failed to act upon.
I don't like this story any more than you do, but the death of the dog is the owner's fault.
Not a good idea in today's police state.
He knew that he was antagonizing the police, and this is why he placed the dog inside the vehicle.
The man is obviously not blind, and even a partially blind man (me) is able to see that the rear driver side window ot the car is opened enough to permit the dog's exit from the vehicle.
That the dog exited the vehicle from the passenger side rear window illustrates the extent of the dog owner's negligence. The dog had more than one choice of egress from the vehicle, which the dog owner failed to act upon.
I don't like this story any more than you do, but the death of the dog is the owner's fault.
Classic blame-the-victim. It's their fault for not getting out of the way of the bullet---I mean, who is dumb enough to get in front of one?
No, the fault lies entirely with the police and their policies. The police failed, and it's clear to most people who happen on this story.
I don't know about the laws in your jurisdiction, but in my state, we have a law regarding dogs known as, "Liability, dog owner."
This law deals with irresponsible dog ownership.
Who here will attest to the fact that this dog owner maintained complete control of his dog?
Don't mistake my position for being pro-police, look at the facts of the matter.
That dog would never have been shot by the police if the dog had been properly constrained within the vehicle.
This law deals with irresponsible dog ownership.
Who here will attest to the fact that this dog owner maintained complete control of his dog?
Don't mistake my position for being pro-police, look at the facts of the matter.
That dog would never have been shot by the police if the dog had been properly constrained within the vehicle.
It's very hard not to mistake your position as being pro-police when the owner was not capable, despite his intentions to properly constrain his dog within the vehicle.
To me it all sounds like a bully taking a kids hand and using it to punch the kid's face all while saying: "Stop hitting yourself! What are you stupid? Stop hitting yourself!"
To me it all sounds like a bully taking a kids hand and using it to punch the kid's face all while saying: "Stop hitting yourself! What are you stupid? Stop hitting yourself!"
It's tough to control your dog when you are handcuffed.
This is one of the most shocking examples of overzealous police force I've ever seen on video. This story is not going to go away, no matter how many times the thread is pulled.
They should have let the guy put his dog back in car - he was 100% cooperative.
But I guess a no-knock raid with assault rifles, tactical entry and armored carriers gets the blood flowing...
This is one of the most shocking examples of overzealous police force I've ever seen on video. This story is not going to go away, no matter how many times the thread is pulled.
They should have let the guy put his dog back in car - he was 100% cooperative.
But I guess a no-knock raid with assault rifles, tactical entry and armored carriers gets the blood flowing...
It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out.
Don't get me wrong, I am not approving of the the way that this situation was handled by the police, but the fault lies with the dog owner.
It is 100% the dog owner's fault for failing to ensure that his dog remained in the vehicle.
I said as much to myself as I watched the man close the door of the car yet failed to roll up the windows to sufficiently prohibit the dog from escaping the vehicle.
I have been raising bull-breed dogs since I was a child, and when you are a responsible owner of a dog that is capable of doing grave injury a large part of that responsibility relates to properly controlling your dogs.
Let's see what "you" would do when confronted with such as situation, and it's "you" who is on the other side of that firearm.
Don't get me wrong, I am not approving of the the way that this situation was handled by the police, but the fault lies with the dog owner.
It is 100% the dog owner's fault for failing to ensure that his dog remained in the vehicle.
I said as much to myself as I watched the man close the door of the car yet failed to roll up the windows to sufficiently prohibit the dog from escaping the vehicle.
I have been raising bull-breed dogs since I was a child, and when you are a responsible owner of a dog that is capable of doing grave injury a large part of that responsibility relates to properly controlling your dogs.
Let's see what "you" would do when confronted with such as situation, and it's "you" who is on the other side of that firearm.
> It's not so fucking difficult to ensure that your car windows are not open enough to let the dog out.
What do you think would have happened if he got into the front seat of his car, put in the keys and turned it on in order to roll the windows up?
I have visions of cops running with guns drawn.
What do you think would have happened if he got into the front seat of his car, put in the keys and turned it on in order to roll the windows up?
I have visions of cops running with guns drawn.
What would have happened if that dog owner had rolled up the windows enough to allow air flow and still kept the dog confined within the car, and then exited the car to speak with the police?
You don't have to fully engage the ignition in order to roll up the windows to the point where a large dog cannot exit through said windows.
I have visions of the dog not being shot by police.
Don't act like an ass. The police were far enough away that the dog owner could have exited his vehicle without triggering the response which you infer.
You don't have to fully engage the ignition in order to roll up the windows to the point where a large dog cannot exit through said windows.
I have visions of the dog not being shot by police.
Don't act like an ass. The police were far enough away that the dog owner could have exited his vehicle without triggering the response which you infer.
> You don't have to fully engage the ignition
I know. That's why I didn't say that. But after being signaled by the police, getting into the driver's seat and putting the keys into the ignition more than reasonably qualifies as a furtive gesture. It could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to flee, and once cops think you're fleeing, all bets are off. Now it isn't just about your dog that might get shot, but your own well-being is at stake.
I did not intend to be an ass. It's perfectly plausible that if he did that, the cops would be at him before he could secure the car, and they'd have shot the dog anyway as it tried to escape from the driver's door or perhaps the windows if they weren't rolled up quickly enough. And you'd be on here saying that he should have just held onto the dog and carefully transferred it to an officer so that they could secure it.
None of this changes the fact that you're engaging in a classic blame-the-victim argument. The onus is not on the victim to "be smart" and get out of the aggressor's way. The onus is on the aggressor to, you know, not aggress.
If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force on a clear power trip by the authorities. When you are given special privileges and powers by society, you ought to be held culpable for anything that happens when you unnecessarily escalate the situation.
I know. That's why I didn't say that. But after being signaled by the police, getting into the driver's seat and putting the keys into the ignition more than reasonably qualifies as a furtive gesture. It could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to flee, and once cops think you're fleeing, all bets are off. Now it isn't just about your dog that might get shot, but your own well-being is at stake.
I did not intend to be an ass. It's perfectly plausible that if he did that, the cops would be at him before he could secure the car, and they'd have shot the dog anyway as it tried to escape from the driver's door or perhaps the windows if they weren't rolled up quickly enough. And you'd be on here saying that he should have just held onto the dog and carefully transferred it to an officer so that they could secure it.
None of this changes the fact that you're engaging in a classic blame-the-victim argument. The onus is not on the victim to "be smart" and get out of the aggressor's way. The onus is on the aggressor to, you know, not aggress.
If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force on a clear power trip by the authorities. When you are given special privileges and powers by society, you ought to be held culpable for anything that happens when you unnecessarily escalate the situation.
*"... If you want to thumb your nose at the stupidity of the victim in this case, then fine. But don't pretend that he was in any way responsible for another human being using lethal force..."
Apparently you have never been responsible for an animal which is capable of killing a man.
If you were familiar with the variables related to the ownership of lethal attack dogs you would understand what I am referring to.
The bottom line is that the dog owner failed to properly control his dog.
The evidence is there for all to see.
Apparently you have never been responsible for an animal which is capable of killing a man.
If you were familiar with the variables related to the ownership of lethal attack dogs you would understand what I am referring to.
The bottom line is that the dog owner failed to properly control his dog.
The evidence is there for all to see.
The central point of your comment here is to show my argument is bad by discrediting me. Which is an ad hominem. So I guess we're done here. G'day.
(And your accusation is false, FWIW.)
(And your accusation is false, FWIW.)