Amazon.com Widgets

Was the killing of the dog in Hawthorne by the cop justified?

Asked by: Aravengeance
  • What Alternative Was There?

    I really don't understand what alternative there was to shooting the dog? Kicking it? (which wouldn't have worked) Running away? Nope. The officers felt threatened. Big dogs are some scary animals when they're mad. They took action to protect themselves. The guy should have done more to control his dog. I don't understand the outrage. It's only a dog.

  • Self Defence is justified

    While I would say the arrest was unjustified, which a lot of people seem to be equating with the shooting also being unjustified, I believe the shooting was justified. The dog, at the point the officer shot it, appeared to be jumping at the officer. This, in my opinion, is justifiable reason to shoot the dog. If this was a man with a knife, no one would question the officers decision, so why are they questioning the officers decision to shoot a dog that appeared to be trying to attack him?

  • It was, all the way.

    I'm seriously starting to think people's emotions are preventing them from seeing the fact that the dog, which appeared to be fairly large, lunged at the cop. The cop was provoked. I seriously doubt the cop had any other option than to shoot it considering not all cops carry less-lethal methods on their person.

  • The owner was at fault, and the police shot the dog in self defense

    The owner had a vendetta with the police department. He previously filed a failed suite against the department. When the man saw the police (and SWAT), he decided to harass them. The owner blasted music and walked his dog near the police in a taunting manner. The owner was clearly disrupting the investigation by distracting the police.
    The man put his dog in the car, with the windows rolled down, and then the police put cuffs on the man. The dog started barking at the police as they cuffed him. As the police began patting the owner down, he started resisting. At this point the dog started climbing out of the car. When the dog jumped out of the car the police drew their weapons. The police tried to secure the dog without shooting it, but the dog continued to attack the police. The police clearly shot the dog in self-defense. It was a tragic event that should have never happened. The owner put the dog in that situation, and the police were just doing their job. People are always ready to blame the police, but we need to put ourselves in their shoes.

    Posted by: DanT
  • The officer did what he had to do

    The fault of the dog's death rests on the owner. The whole reason the dog "charged (I'll get into that later) was because the owner was blasting music and refused to turn it down, therefore obstructing justice. The owner knew he was going to get arrested for he put the dog in the car. And when he put it in the car, he leaves the window down and also does not secure the leash inside the car. Finally, while towards the end the dog is not attacking the officer, the dog did originally charge towards the officers. This dog was not simply a poodle or something smaller, it was a Rottweiler. The officer tried dealing with the situation with a civil manner by grabbing its collar in an attempt to lead it away and prevent it from causing a disturbance but the dog did not behave in a passive manner. The officer reacted in a manner that removed a possible threat.

  • Self defense is justified

    It doesn't matter whether you believe the police officers arresting the man was justified or not. When the dog attacked the police officer, the officer had every right to defend himself from the dog at any and all costs. It would be ideal for the owner to have called off the dog and calm it down. However, in many cases, when dogs get into those kinds of furies, they do not listen to even their owners. This is seen in many cases with pitbulls attacking children and not listening to their owners call them off. It is hard for the dogs, when they've been breed for generations as aggressive guard dogs, but in the end, this was clearly a case of self defense.

  • Of course it is justified

    Do you think the cop could have done anything? The dog jumped at him and the cop defended himself. I don't think in this situation the cop had time to use a tazer. If he misses with the tazer he is screwed. If he uses pepper spray then the dog will get even more mad and make something worse. The real killer of the dog is his owner. The officers were dealing with an armed roberry and they were enough panicked about that...

  • The Police were right to kill this dangerous Rottweiler that should have been locked in the car.

    The owner of the Rottweiler, Robsy had his car stereo blaring loudly, which was interference with a crime that was in progress and interference at a crime scene. Robsy is obsessed with the idea that police in Hawthorne are racial profiling, which I will discuss later.

    This is another example of people owning big bad dogs that they should not own, e.G., Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.

    This uncontrolled Rottweiler jumped at and attacked a police officer. The police officer and other police shot it to death for the attack in self-defense. This was self-defense and perfectly legal.

    Shooting the dog was sad, but justified since it attacked the police office.

    The dog should have been locked securely in the car so it could not have gotten out.

    Many people think erroneously that Rottweiler dogs are great for pets, they are not.

    Dog Attack Deaths and Maiming, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2012
    Study highlights
    The combination of large molosser breeds, including pit bulls, rottweilers, etc.

    All those breeds of dogs were designed for protection and herding, they were not designed to be pets.

    Another study states the following:

    Over a 7-year period from 2005 to 2011, 213 Americans suffered death due to dog bite injury.

    60% or 128 people died from bites from Pit Bulls
    14% or 29 people died from bites from Rottweilers
    4% or 9 people died from bites from Huskies
    4% or 8 people died from bites from American Bulldogs
    4% or 8 people died from bites from Mixed Breeds
    3% or 7 people died from bites from German Shepherds
    2% or 4 people died from bites from Boxers
    2% or 4 people died from bits from Malamutes
    7% or 3 people or less died from bits from other breeds.
    Http://www.Dogsbite.Org/pdf/7-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.Pdf

    This black guy, Leon Rosby had his car stereo blaring loudly at a crime scene. He was filming the scene because he is obsessed with the idea that police engage in racial profiling.

    Why are more blacks and Hispanic arrested for crimes and are in jail for crimes? They do most of the crime. That should be easy for most people to understand; but, they have to bring in the race card as a smoke screen to hide the facts, which are that blacks and Hispanics as a percentage of their respective populations do most of the crime in America.

    Hawthorne, CA has an extremely high crime rate. The violent crime rate in 2011 was 401.5 compared to the U.S. Average of 213.6.

    How dangerous is it to live in Hawthorne, CA compared to nearest cities: Hawthorne has a dangerousness rate of 360.1, Torrance 134.5, Redondo Beach 173.9

    Why is the crime rate so high in Hawthorne? It is mainly because blacks and Hispanics make up most of the population; and blacks and Hispanics are responsible for most of the violent crimes, e.G., murder, rape, drug distribution involving violence in the USA.
    Http://www.Americanprogress.Org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

  • Uhhhh Yes! Yes! Yes!

    First of all, the man was an idiot for interfering with the police work. Instead of remaining in a safe distance and observing like all others, he approached the cop in an aggressive manner. The cop was simply trying to subdue him before the dog came to protect its owner. If anything, it was the idiotic man's fault. Both the dog and the cop acted instinctively. The dog approach the cop and if you watched the video, the cop tried several times to evade the dog but the dog continued to advance. Should he have let the dogs owner calm it down? Yes. But like I said earlier, he was acting instinctively and I highly doubt that he was thinking logically at the moment.

  • The Dog Jumped Up

    I'm sorry but in this case the police officers were already dealing with an armed robbery and the pet owner was being a nuisance. Now not only do the cops have to worry about getting this man away from the scene but now the dog comes into play. I know a lot of dog lovers will say it wouldn't bite but the cops can't be sure of that and plus the dog jumped up.

  • The cops were the ones who put themselves in the position to shoot the dog.

    After watching the video tape several times I see no wrong-doing on the part of the suspect in question. It appears that the cops had chips on their shoulders - subjective, I know, but that's what the look on their faces suggests. I see no reason the man was handcuffed, not at the time of the arrest nor after the arrest happened. The officers neglected the reason they were there in the first place to harass this man and made no effort to ensure the dog was secure before assaulting its owner.

  • The cop was the initial aggressor

    Since the arrest was unjustified, the direct consequences of the arrest is the cops fault. The cop was essentially assaulting the man. One direct consequence of attacking someone is that a dog, or even a decent human bystander, might decide to counter-attack the aggressor. This is what happened, the dog was justified in attacking the officer since the officer assaulted the dogs owner. A human bystander would also have been justified in attacking the cop, and shooting that person would have been wrong.

    The word of a cop is not the law. Cops have no right to be obeyed if they do not have a legal basis for their orders. There is not and ought not be any general law requiring unquestioning obedience to authority. Obedience is (and should) only be required when there are specific laws justifying the actions of the policemen.

    Also, one should be more tolerant of a dogs actions than those of a human since dogs have lower cognitive ability.

  • No, Just No

    After watching the full video several times, I have noticed that infact, the man being arrested was not interfering with the police and had been intelligent to put his dog in the car. If the dog got out and walked over to the police after escaping through a window, it was only following it's natural instinct to protect its owner. I live in a country in which domestic abuse is very common and a lot of native and/or poor citizens don't care for dogs or cats. However, this takes place in the United States of America, a supposedly well educated and good country in which stuff like such should not happen. The shooting of the dog is not justified.

  • No just no.

    Murder is murder. Dog murder is murder. The dog did not murder. The cop did. The one who KNOWS
    the law. Please, people are discriminating against a dog who didn't know better. Murdering a dog. The cop should know better. Not justified. Not at all. Murder is murder, people of debate.Org.

  • Trigger Happy Police

    The police have become such bullies who let the power they have get to their head it's really sickening.. The guy with the dog was doing nothing wrong in video taping the incident. We see footage like he was shooting every single day on video sites.. He put his dog in the car when he saw the police was (wrongfully) approaching him to arrest him. The dog didn't attack the cops, he went over to see what was going on... Something really needs to be done about our corrupt police force.

  • Lack of spine

    Cops these days have a lack of spine when dealing with dogs. They have the opportunity to show some courage and not use deadly force but choose to play "cops and robbers" and kill when they don't need to.

    Dogs are not property but members of an mixed family. Would you shoot a 3 year old? They do on a daily basis under the guise of "he scared me so I am justified."

  • This is animal cruelty.

    The police did not have to shoot the dog so many times, the animal was wallowing in pain for several minutes, the police could have used other alternatives like allowing the owner to calm the dog down, or using any other method possible. It was not the dogs fault that the police were not trained on how to react in these types of situations.

  • It was not

    We have specialized brigade for that. We have have people who can trap alligator and other animal. This dog was merely trying to defend his master here. Once again it is an use of the gun before the brain for a police officer. If there were no camera this time you can be sure the cops would be happy and hitting the dog body after that.

  • Whatever happened to non-lethal force?

    The only argument in favor of killing the dog is so shallow it's absurd. Okay, the dog was barking and perhaps scaring the officer, so he needed to be killed. First of all, the dog's owner wasn't causing any trouble, so they could have released him to get his dog under control. Otherwise, there are simply less dangerous ways of handling the situation, such as using pepper spray. There is simply no justification for killing the dog.

  • Cop had no right to arrest the guy and they have no right to kill his dog.

    All the guy was doing was video taping the police that is not against the law. He was exercising his first amendment right. The cops being power hungry arrested him for no reason which is illegal. So right off the bat this could have been avoided if the cops weren't so power hungry. So now about the dog. The police officer who shot the dog was using excessive force. First of all the dog was even aggressive, if it wanted to attack it would stop it would just attack. These police officers should be fired and put in jail for their excessive force and violating our first amendment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2013-07-10T09:26:41.123
It is not clear why the owner was being detained. The owner was very responsible in placing his pet in his vehicle. He was also trying to be compliant despite vague reasons for stopping him. It's not clear that the canine was undoubtedly going to kill the officer. The impulsiveness of the police translated into a defense mechanism in the dog, who could sense his owner's distress as well as the officers' aggression. The officers should have given a warning to the owner that they would defend themselves from the animal, if necessary. The dog was being protective by barking and approaching. IT'S A DOG. It was not necessary to shoot it, and even less necessary to shoot it multiple times.

Ideally, the officers should have asked the owner to control his pet as its aggression elevated. Once either tied up or placed back in the vehicle, the officers could then explain their reasons for detaining and/or arresting the gentleman.
Quan says2013-07-10T17:43:09.587
Killing an attacking dog is justified. However, according to my interpretation, the events that led up to the dog attacking were not justified. I can assign blame to both the police and the dog's owner.
AnonyFeline says2013-07-13T05:04:29.767
Good point. The gentleman with the dog probably should not have parked so close to a police operation with this music so loud and his windows down. The police should definitely not have tried to arrest him so readily, but perhaps informed him that there was an operation underway, and to lower the volume of his stereo and/or move away from the scene. Deadly force may not have been necessary at the instant it was used. The police would have been wise to allow the owner to control the canine prior to immobilizing him.
TheBunnyAssassin says2013-07-13T21:30:20.953
AnonyFeline said: "Good point. The gentleman with the dog..."
Reminds me of: MOTHER FATHER GENTLEMAN!
Sorry, just got a bit carried away...
Ok, it was justified... I mean if a big dog jumped at you with a focused intent of ripping your throat out, you would shoot. It's a split second decision, and the officer wisely chose to fight. If he ran, the dog might've jumped on the man, mauling him, and causing a lawsuit. Shooting the dog was a simple and easy resolution. Perfect.