The Instigator
RocketEngineer
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aravengeance
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The killing of the Dog in Hawthorne was justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
RocketEngineer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 35480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

RocketEngineer

Pro

This will be a 2 round debate, and I will let you pick what side you want. Round 1 is for acceptance, and picking your side, and I will start my arguments in R2.
Aravengeance

Con

Thank you for instigating this debate and I accept. I,Con, would like to support the argument that: the killing of the dog in Hawthorne was NOT justified.
Good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
RocketEngineer

Pro

I would like to thank Aravengeance for accepting this debate, and look forward to what he has to say.

I will be arguing for the pro, that the killing of the dog was justified. The original video has been posted in this debate.



Argument 1: The situation

Let's take an unbiased look at the situation from the cops point of view. They are in the middle of a stake out with another individual in a house across the street.

Contrary to the first video, a new video has leaked that shows the situation in a little bit more detail. This video was featured by the young turks, in the opening round of this debate, but here is the original.

http://www.youtube.com...

In this video you can see that the man is directly interfering with the police's efforts to get the individual out of his home. The Leon Roswell is directly yelling at the police while they are bargaining through the loud speaker. This action could have directly violated the departments effforts to catch the criminal. This in addition to his car playing loud music, were direct attempts to prevent the police department from success.

The Hawthorn PD says it arrested Rosby because he interfered in a police operation with his “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 … created an increasingly dangerous situation and demanded officers’ focus away from the matter at hand.” (1)

Roswell was not arrested for filming the incident, that is perfectly legal in the state of california. I am making this clear, and to the point, because a lot of the out rage this video has gotten was because of the mis-conception that the police did not have the right to arrest the man in the first place.

Interfering with police work is against the law, however, and whether the man agreed or dis-agreed with the Police departments efforts, doesn't matter. (2)

Argument 2: The killing of the dog

One of the main arguments against the killing of the dog was that it was excessive. Right away, I will agree with this. As per the resolution, my arguments will be about whether the killing of the dog was justified, and in this case, it was. The police, were arresting a man for interfering with their investigation, and felt threatened by the presence of a dog that has a history of violence, and danger.

Rotweillers, in general are dangerous animals, and have even passed up pitbulls in the dangerous pet category.

"Rottweilers have passed pit bulls as America’s deadliest dog breed, according to a study released today.The large dogs were involved in 33 fatal attacks on humans between 1991 and 1998, the American Veterinary Medical Association said. Pit bulls, which had been responsible for more deaths than any other breed, were involved in 21 fatal attacks over the same period." (3)

Rottweilers have been known to attack, and to kill.

With that said, the officers arresting Roswell, had no idea who the he was, or how he had trained his dog. Earlier in the video, you can see Roswell tugging harshly on his dog's leash, in a poor treatment method. This type of behavior can teach an animal to be violent. While the animal probably was protecting it's owner, it had no way of knowing what the situation was or what was going on. It simply saw it's owner being handled by another person, and sought to protect it's owner.

The police officer who shot the dog, had his life in danger the moment the dog tried to attack him. In the whole matter of around 10 seconds, they really didn't have much time to sit there and decide on more humane methods to defend themselves. Sure, the officer could have tazed, or used a baton on the animal, but it still would have injured it, or even have resulted in death.

But not only did the police officer not have time to evaluate such methods, they shouldn't have had to. The simple fact is they had no idea who the man was, or how the dog would react, and being attacked, is a perfect response for killing in defense of ones own life.

Conclusion:

There is emotional outrage, and maybe even a natural bias against cop, or law enforcement for a lot of the protesters. But let's keep in mind that the police were there to do their job. Whether the Leon agreed with it or not really didn't matter. The police officers were at the scene taking orders from their officials, and anything the Leon said wouldn't have made a difference in their efforts. With that said, he shouldn't have interfered with the police at all. It was unfortunate that his dog was killed, but he has to realize that it was a direct result of his own actions. If he wanted to make a point or a scene, the Leon should have put the dog away first, without involving his pet. The pre-caution of the car, wasn't well thought out or planned because the window was down. But we can assume the Leon probably knew his dog would react violently given the fact that the Leon Roswell instantly put the dog in the car when he saw the police officer approaching.

The act of killing the dog, while excessive was justified because it was out of self defense, and was not an instigated attack. If Leon Roswell had never interfered, we can safely assume that this incident would never have occured.


1. http://newsone.com...
2. http://www.nwitimes.com...
3. http://abcnews.go.com...


Aravengeance

Con

C1: The Situation
I pretty much agree that this is how is went but even though I agree, that does not mean I am saying the killing of the dog was justified. Just because that is how it happened does not mean the killing of the dog was a guaranteed outcome. Most, if not all, my rebuttals will be about Argument 2: Killing the dog.

C2: The killing of the dog.
Although rottweilers are one of the most deadliest dog breed, that does not mean the rottweiler in the video is completely dangerous.
"Rottweilers have been known to attack, and to kill."
I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not, but "Asians have been known to get the highest test scores."
Saying that the rottweiler was going to kill the policemen, is a bit of a generalization and stereotype like the thing I said above ^.
Genetics play a bit of a role in the determination of their actions (i.e. a rottweiler killing, an asian getting the highest test score.) but what should truly determine their actions is how they were raised. We don't know how Rosby raised his dog, but you said:
"With that said, the officers arresting Roswell, had no idea who the he was, or how he had trained his dog. Earlier in the video, you can see Rosby tugging harshly on his dog's leash, in a poor treatment method. This type of behavior can teach an animal to be violent."
Because of this one action, one may think that Rosby doesn't treat his dog right, and by that they will assume that the dog is violent.

As you can see in the interview video, Rosby says that the dog was family. If his dog was family, surely he treated and trained him right.

"While the animal probably was protecting it's owner, it had no way of knowing what the situation was or what was going on. It simply saw it's owner being handled by another person, and sought to protect it's owner."
Well now the whole thing about whether he's violent or not barely matters, anyone trying to protect someone they cared about would probably be violent as a last resort no matter what they're like on a daily basis.

"The police officer who shot the dog, had his life in danger the moment the dog tried to attack him. In the whole matter of around 10 seconds, they really didn't have much time to sit there and decide on more humane methods to defend themselves. Sure, the officer could have tazed, or used a baton on the animal, but it still would have injured it, or even have resulted in death."
They only reason they had 10 seconds to do something was because the officer was not thinking all the way through. They could've had much longer time, because as shown in your videos the dog backs away, and according to this website: http://www.tarynblyth.co.za..., a dog will walk away when it's calm and wants to avoid confrontation.
Instead of thoroughly thinking of a plan while the dog didn't do anything, the officer just decides to grab the leash and not think of the consequences since like you said, he didn't know how the dog would react. Obviously the dog would defend himself, because if it was barking at the fact that the cops had his owner then he would surely attack if approached by someone he didn't know well. Also the dog saw that the man who was grabbing him was the same man who was making his owner struggle, so why wouldn't you attack if you were approached by the person who made the person you care about struggle.

There police could've done other things to handle the situation.
1.Instead of just 1 cop trying to handle the dog, why not 2? 2 cops were not necessary to handle Rosby. The cop with the cuffs was enough. The 2 cops could've handled the situation without killing the dog.
"Sure, the officer could have tazed, or used a baton on the animal, but it still would have injured it, or even have resulted in death."
This would be a totally different story, if the dog was simply injured. Everyone would've understood and not bash the cop, taking one's life and injuring them are far from each other.
As for dying by means of a baton/taser, I'm sure the dog would've survived that.

In the tazed dog video, a rottweiler (the same kind of dog Rosby has) attacked a cop and it resulted in the rottweiler being tazed. Did it die? No. So if this dog didn't die, then Rosby's dog would probably live too. What it did was run away.
There's quite a difference between Rosby's dog and that dog ^. That dog did not attack because it's owner was being harmed, it attacked just because it was mischievous. Rosby's dog though only barked when it saw it's owner being attacked. As you can see the tazed dog was much more disobedient and violent than Rosby's dog. If 2 cops were able to handle the tazed dog who was obviously much more vicious because he never backed away while Rosby's dog did 2 times, then why wouldn't the cops in Hawthorne be able to handle Rosby's dog? Also if the tazed dog who was much more vicious avoided more confrontation when he was tazed then Rosby's dog probably would do the same.
2.Do Nothing.
In the interview video, Rosby said that he was telling his dog to stop so I'm assuming this is what he said right before the dog backed away. Instead of taking pre-cautions or just doing nothing at all because the dog was already avoiding conflict, the cop decides to grab him by the leash thus provoking him and like I said before, the dog had to attack out of natural instinct, because the dog was approached by a man he did not know well but what he did know about the man was that, he is the man who is making his owner struggle. So obviously, the cop was more on the negative side and the dog had to do what he did because of what he knew of the cop.

Super short conclusion:
The police did not handle the situation well when there were many good choices to pick from, on how to handle the situation well. The police did not have to do what was done.

1.http://www.tarynblyth.co.za...
Debate Round No. 2
RocketEngineer

Pro

Thanks for getting back so soon!

Argument 1:
Skipping this one as Ara conceded this point.


Argument 2: The killing of the dog

Contrary to my opponents analogy of Rotweillers and Asians, I am not saying that the dog neccesarily was dangerous. In fact he's right that because a breed tends to act one way doesn't mean all will act that way. But Animals still are different than humans, and can't always control their instincts.

Their are countless stories, and lawsuits around the world against pitbulls who have attacked dogs and humans. Their owners will seemed shocked given their dog's home behavior. But the simple point is that not all animals can control their instincts. Rottweilers having a tendency to be aggresive and dangerous may not have the ability to control their animal instinct. Anyways, the point is, whether he did have that or not, the Officer didn't know. We can assume not, given that the dog was clearly lunging at him in the video, moments before the officer fired.

Next, my opponent argues that the owner treated his dog right because they said they did.

"As you can see in the interview video, Rosby says that the dog was family. If his dog was family, surely he treated and trained him right."

First off, we don't know this is true just because they said it is. If it was, why couldn't he have used more calm ways of calming the stressed dog down than yanking on his leash? To me, I can easily see this being the reason for fueling the dog's fire.

Also your "surely" statement reminds me of a recent thread someone just posted. And is another argument against why we shouldn't believe a statement or argument based on a vague set of variables. (1)

"Well now the whole thing about whether he's violent or not barely matters, anyone trying to protect someone they cared about would probably be violent as a last resort no matter what they're like on a daily basis."

But does this not justify the police in shooting the dog out of self defense? The Dog had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't hurt or kill Roswell. A human could have made this connection, but an animal has no idea. The animal is acting to protect it's owner, but doing so in a violent way is non-essential. Unfortunately, the dog had no way of knowing this. Should the Police Officer have just let the dog attack, and potentially injure him? This is why the Officer was justified in shooting the dog in self protection.

"Instead of thoroughly thinking of a plan while the dog didn't do anything, the officer just decides to grab the leash and not think of the consequences since like you said, he didn't know how the dog would react."

This is in-accurate. Forget the fact that they had little to no reaction time, the Dog was acting crazy, and readying an attack. The officers immediently raised their weapons, but the one officer only fired when he was attacked. He didn't instigate the attack; the Dog did, which is why it was justified.

"Also the dog saw that the man who was grabbing him was the same man who was making his owner struggle, so why wouldn't you attack if you were approached by the person who made the person you care about struggle."

Yeah, we get it. We know why the Dog attacked. Again this doesn't make the officers reaction any less just. They had no plan of hurting Roswell, just detaining him. The dog being an animal, has no way of understanding this. The dog attacking, justifies the police officer to defend himself.

"Instead of just 1 cop trying to handle the dog, why not 2? 2 cops were not necessary to handle Rosby. The cop with the cuffs was enough. The 2 cops could've handled the situation without killing the dog."

I technically don't have to answer this as it doesn't make an effect on the topic of this debate. The point of this is that the officer was justified doing what he did. Not that things could have gone better had everyone not been stressed, with very little re-action time. But my best guess is that they had two people hold the man down because of the obvious rebellious way he was acting, meant that they had no idea how he would act. Why would they need more than one officer on the dog anyone? His weapons should have been more than enough to handle the Rottweiler.

Next: In regaurds to your tazed argument: I conceded this in my opening round. There was definitely better ways that this situation could have gone down. A lot of time when Cops deal with dogs though, they are at least pre-pared for more than a minute or two on what's going on. These cops didn't. One second the dog was in the car, the next second he was out, and barking, looking viscous. Had they had more time to assess the situation, it is likely that things would have went down differently. But in this situation specifically, we cannot blame the officer for quickly defending himself in the manner that he did.

"Instead of taking pre-cautions or just doing nothing at all because the dog was already avoiding conflict, the cop decides to grab him by the leash thus provoking him and like I said before, the dog had to attack out of natural instinct, because the dog was approached by a man he did not know well but what he did know about the man was that, he is the man who is making his owner struggle."

First the officer never succesfully grabbed the leash.

Second, this wasn't done to provoke the animal, it was done so the officer could contain the dog. Had he been able to grab the leash close enough to the dog's neck, he could have held the dog such that it couldn't attack. Or he could have tried to lead it inside.


Conclusion:

What happened to the dog sucks, and is really sad for the owner, and those who had to witness this. But based on the situation, I feel I have proved that the Cop was justified in shooting the dog, and that it was done purely out of self defense. There are a lot of emotions that go into seeing the dog die at the hands of a police officer, a breed of people that we all love to hate. But put yourself in that situation. Can you honestly say that you wouldbe able to form coherent thought in a matter of a few seconds to assess different methods of handling the dog? Maybe some could, but I don't know if I could have in that amount of time. At any rate, the action was justified, because if it was not done in that instant the police officer could have been injured. The dog was attacking him in that moment. He didn't have much of a chance to resort to other methods.

With that said, I thank my opponent for this deba and wish him luck in his final response!

1. http://www.debate.org...


Aravengeance

Con

I concede. Thanks for an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 4 years ago
MrJosh
RocketEngineerAravengeanceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A model debate in its conduct. Arguments to PRO due to CON's concession.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
RocketEngineerAravengeanceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
RocketEngineerAravengeanceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con concedes!
Vote Placed by Gaurdian_Rock 4 years ago
Gaurdian_Rock
RocketEngineerAravengeanceTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Dropped aruements