The Instigator
Juris_Naturalis
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Hawthorne cop was justified in shooting the dog in the video

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,128 times Debate No: 35594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Juris_Naturalis

Pro

https://www.youtube.com...

It says it's age restricted, so my apologies if you have trouble viewing it. 1st round acceptance.
Duncan

Con

I accept the debate on one condition; Please explain to me what is going on in the video as I have no idea why the man in question was being arrested.
Debate Round No. 1
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

There's a version you can watch on this forum.
http://www.debate.org...

The audio is really bad on any video I can find on this incident, but what seems to be going on is the man is in someway obstructing justice, by verbally accusing the police of being racist or video taping their crime scene or blaring his stereo, those are the three theories out there, I can't tell because of the audio. Anyway, the police arrest the guy, but beforehand the owner of the dog puts the dog in the car, but leaves the windows down. Then as they're handcuffing the guy, they surround him and start to what looks to me like a pat down or they may be searching him, I don't know. I can't tell. But what does happen, is that the dog jumps out of the window and lunges at one of the cops. The cop shoots the dog 3 times I think, the dog doesn't die and limps off a few feet. The video ends here, but there are some who say that the cop then shot the dog again to put it out of it's misery. That's not shown here and I can't prove that so don't hold me to it.

Anyways, I believe the cop was justified in shooting the dog because he was provoked by the dog and acted in self defence.
Duncan

Con

Despite no full knowledge of the given video, I still think the shooting of the dog in question was an unethical and unjustifiable action. The killing of a dog must always be a last resort, and the cop in question had alternatives. He should have used a stick of some sort to either strike the dog in the back of the neck or to block the dog's bite so the second officer could restrain the dog. I think it unlikely that the suspect would flee, after all, he would be leaving his dog behind. The officer jumped to the last resort without even seeing what the owner's experienced solution would be. For this reason, I believe the cop was unjustified in his actions.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan
Debate Round No. 2
Juris_Naturalis

Pro

What alternatives did the cop have? Not all cops are authorised to carry non-lethal means about them. The cop can't just conveniently pick up a stick with a dog actively trying to attack him. You think it would be unlikely, that's your opinion but I don't share it. I seriously doubt he would go back into custody a second time of his own will, and it is his fault because he didn't properly secure the dog. The cop had no time to ask the owner to put him away properly, he would have already been bit. The cop reacted in the only way he knew how, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Duncan

Con

Hmm... A stick, a stick oh where could a police officer find a sti- oh wait. His baton. That's a stick. And the suspect in question, Leon Rosby, was outside his own house when they arrested him. Oh, by the way, Officer Salmon has a history of brutality (http://www.examiner.com...) in the past. The action, at least for me, is quite simple. Even my slender frame could pull out my baton, block the dog's first bite, and then grab the back of the dog's neck. Officer Salmon is responsible for his actions for refusing to consider and alternative to shooting.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
Im too lazy to confirm my account but I would vote for pro. The cops were dealing with an armed robbery. The situation was pretty stressful. The police had no time to deal with the dog they were panicked enough about what's happening. Of course a huge dog will scare them. The police officer could have been bit and that would seriously make a problem for the job they were doing. The dog jumped at the officer and like every normal person who doesn't understand from dogs he shot it. I would have done that too. The real killer of the dog was his owner.

P.S sry for bad English
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
I'm pretty sure the way officers deal with criminals who use dogs is to shoot the dog.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
You'd think officers would be trained to deal with criminals who used dogs. Besides, you can use the method on your own, the second officer just improves the effectiveness of the method. And no planning is required, if you saw a dog on someone, you would need them to tell you to get it off them.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
" If you hold it out so the do bites it instead of your hand, then the second officer holds the dog by the neck..."

I don't see anyone coordinating all that within the split second it takes a dog to go from growling at someone to attacking someone. The cop's actions were not inappropriate.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
I didn't say hit the do with the club. If you hold it out so the do bites it instead of your hand, then the second officer holds the dog by the neck, then the do can be unharmed. And the suspect cannot escape with his hands behind his back. Besides, you can see the way he was not resisting arrest. He would not have run anyway. The police did not need to kill the man's dog.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
I should have made this 5 rounds.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmmm...

PRO didn't present a substantive case, and he has BoP. Also, he failed to realize that police carry billy clubs, which is kind of weird to me.

CON presented character sources, which I found to be interesting. I don't buy his point about the cop defending himself with a billy club...I could easily see that as becoming more brutal than a gun-shot, since you wouldn't know when to stop beating the dog into submission.

I will score arguments a tie, and sources to CON.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Juris_NaturalisDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: In essence pro let con lead him into the stick argument, when these are uniformed police officers. While I actually disagree with the logic of the billy club against that fighting dog (some bastard cut the poor thing's tail off, and possibly mutilated the ears), the flaws were not presented here. I think it was a justified shooting, even if I dislike that it happened. However conduct to pro, because con waited for the final round (after pro could not respond) to begin a real argument with sources.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Juris_NaturalisDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Juris_NaturalisDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not going to post this video because I will be extremely bias. I could read the content of this debate 100 times and I still would be bias. Every time i watch that video, it makes me sick. The officer did not have to shoot the dog. He could have backed up or moved, or even uncuffed the owner to allow him to get the dog back in the car. Instead he stands there like a fucking moron and yanks on the owner harder, provoking the dog even more. Instead of even trying to back up. The dog then barks and snaps at him. So he decides to shoot him in front of a crowd of people. It is impossible to for me to not be bias. I will add if a officer shot my dog without giving me a chance to restrain him, or even as much as trying to back up. I would have his house, his job, his money, and his future. I would also still be very tempted to smack the hell out of him. If this video showed that the dog was ruthlessly attack him I would understand. This was pure stupidity and almost baiting the situation