Hawtorne, Ca Police Kill Dog

[razr390]

A lot of wannabe cops and people who think they know what they are talking about in this thread. We do not know why the owner was cuffed since we were not there but the shooting of the dog was easily justified. He tried a couple times to grab the dog and leash but it continued to jump at them. The officer felt his life and the peoples life around him were at jeopardy so he used his right to defend himself by taking it down. Story over. I am sure he didn't want to shoot the dog but lets be real, that's not some 45lb lab or small dog.

So he thought the dog was putting other peoples' lives in danger, and in order to prevent their lives from being in danger he discharges his weapon NEAR the dog, which is presumably NEAR people (which the dog was being a danger to), and therefore is justified? If anything the officer put the bystanders in more danger by discharging his weapon FOUR times.

As I, and others have stated and will state again: If the man who was detained posed no resistance, and he himself automatically put himself in the position to be handcuffed, let him at least talk to the dog and calm him down. The third officer, who shot the dog, rushed into the whole situation and that's why, while the shooting is justified, it will cause him deep legal troubles because of the way he rushed into it AND the fact that he could have taken other measures to deter/immobilize the dog. Know one thing, the dog only shows "aggressive" behavior when the officer goes for the leash the SECOND time. Oh well. What's done is done, but this officer is NOT in the wrong for defending himself, he is in the wrong for how he chose to defend himself in said situation, as well as how he proceeded into the situation.

 

[razr390]

Updates:

We are having a debate here, but some people are taking this too seriously.

Article: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_...lice-pull-officers-involved-dog-shooting-from

Pic of official HPD Press release:

QUOTED: Lt. Swain:

"In an interview, Swain would not pass judgment on the shooting.

'I'm not saying it's justified, but even when it's justified, there are some learning points," he said. "Could we have done anything different? We'll look at all those facts.'"

 

[razr390]

Update:

Quoted from:http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Hawthorne-California-Police-Officer-Dog-Shot-214275441.html

"The department does not provide training specific to aggressive dogs, Fager told NBC4."

Possibly killer comment that could affect the outcome of the lawsuit in favor of the owner.

 

[oempls]

So he thought the dog was putting other peoples' lives in danger, and in order to prevent their lives from being in danger he discharges his weapon NEAR the dog, which is presumably NEAR people (which the dog was being a danger to), and therefore is justified? If anything the officer put the bystanders in more danger by discharging his weapon FOUR times.

As I, and others have stated and will state again: If the man who was detained posed no resistance, and he himself automatically put himself in the position to be handcuffed, let him at least talk to the dog and calm him down. The third officer, who shot the dog, rushed into the whole situation and that's why, while the shooting is justified, it will cause him deep legal troubles because of the way he rushed into it AND the fact that he could have taken other measures to deter/immobilize the dog. Know one thing, the dog only shows "aggressive" behavior when the officer goes for the leash the SECOND time. Oh well. What's done is done, but this officer is NOT in the wrong for defending himself, he is in the wrong for how he chose to defend himself in said situation, as well as how he proceeded into the situation.

You must have never had to make a split second possibly life decision. When you are in those crucial seconds things can happen. The owner was cuffed so him trying to detain the dog was pretty much out of the question. Talking the dog down at that instance was probably not going to happen. As for the officers decisions he tried to detain the dog by the leash and by force with no luck so he felt like he was in danger and chose to use deadly force. Yeah he probably coulda used OC spray or a baton but it was his choice and he has that right as an officer. There are levels of escalation of force and sometimes they may be skipped. I woulda done the same thing in his shoes considering the size of the dog.

 

[razr390]

You must have never had to make a split second possibly life decision. When you are in those crucial seconds things can happen. The owner was cuffed so him trying to detain the dog was pretty much out of the question. Talking the dog down at that instance was probably not going to happen. As for the officers decisions he tried to detain the dog by the leash and by force with no luck so he felt like he was in danger and chose to use deadly force. Yeah he probably coulda used OC spray or a baton but it was his choice and he has that right as an officer. There are levels of escalation of force and sometimes they may be skipped. I woulda done the same thing in his shoes considering the size of the dog.

Don't tell me it's his right as an officer if the police chief said "while it may be justified we will look at what we could have done differently". They know they overreacted to this situation.

Also, the officer MIGHT have had to make a split second decision, but he put himself in that process by rushing into the situation. Watch the video again: yes the dog lunges, the SECOND time the officer gets within a foot of the dog and motions toward him. Look at the video before that, the dog isn't even barking anymore, he's just sniffing the ground and then third officer tries to grab the leash.

I never said it wasn't justified, BUT I did say it could have ended/proceeded differently, all based on how the LEO's would have acted differently. And yes, you could have let the owner talk the dog down because the dog was responding to him when he said "Max, no!"

It was a split second decision because the officers turned it into one.

Sent from my BlackBerry Q10 using Tapatalk 2

 

[knoxville1]

It was a split second decision because the officers turned it into one.

Sent from my BlackBerry Q10 using Tapatalk 2

No, they were put in a split second decision by the dogs owner creating the whole mess. Keep driving and the entire situation is avoided. Why do you keep blaming the cops for reacting (regardless of how appropriate the end result) after a chain of events started and escalated by the dog owner?

99% of clear thinking people - Wow a whole slew of cops, I will roll past and continue my day since what is happening is none of my business and stopping will not result in anything positive for me.

No stop, no attention, no shots fired no dead dog. Period.

 

[Skipdr]

No, they were put in a split second decision by the dogs owner creating the whole mess. Keep driving and the entire situation is avoided. Why do you keep blaming the cops for reacting (regardless of how appropriate the end result) after a chain of events started and escalated by the dog owner?

99% of clear thinking people - Wow a whole slew of cops, I will roll past and continue my day since what is happening is none of my business and stopping will not result in anything positive for me.

No stop, no attention, no shots fired no dead dog. Period.

You didn't know? All cops are in the wrong at all times no matter the situation

 

[razr390]

I never said all cops are wrong at all times no matter the situation. The owner did not escalate the situation other than the fact that his radio was blasting, that's it. (The music you hear in the background). Again, I never said all cops are wrong no matter the situation, nor did I say that all cops are corrupt and assholes, because it's not true, I know many cops and they're all different from one another (as we are humans). But in every situations there exists protocol with multiple options to proceed. For example: Is suspicious guy armed or concealing his person? Yes -> do this; No-> do this; etc. The fact that the dog owner was not resisting and put himself in the position to allow the officers to handcuff him before they even touched him showed that he wasn't posing a threat to anyone. Read the previous pages, as it's easy to make comments on the 2nd page and come back to the 15th page and say something else without reading every post in between. There were two LEO's (Yes, CURRENT LEO's) who are members on the forums who said that the LEO's in the video could have done better in protocol, as well as a Marine, who said something similar as well. Remember, whatever the owner does, the cops have to show the level of least deadliness in force, trying to get the most positive result out of every situation. (That's why they'd rather disarm/shoot a guy in the leg than fatally kill him[In many stand-offs, there are videos online]) Again, remember, they also carry the badge to show that they are professionals in their field and in the community, and therefore should be held to that standard. Their actions weren't professional, no matter how justified.

 

[fcvapor05]

I never said all cops are wrong at all times no matter the situation. The owner did not escalate the situation other than the fact that his radio was blasting, that's it. (The music you hear in the background). Again, I never said all cops are wrong no matter the situation, nor did I say that all cops are corrupt and assholes, because it's not true, I know many cops and they're all different from one another (as we are humans). But in every situations there exists protocol with multiple options to proceed. For example: Is suspicious guy armed or concealing his person? Yes -> do this; No-> do this; etc. The fact that the dog owner was not resisting and put himself in the position to allow the officers to handcuff him before they even touched him showed that he wasn't posing a threat to anyone. Read the previous pages, as it's easy to make comments on the 2nd page and come back to the 15th page and say something else without reading every post in between. There were two LEO's (Yes, CURRENT LEO's) who are members on the forums who said that the LEO's in the video could have done better in protocol, as well as a Marine, who said something similar as well. Remember, whatever the owner does, the cops have to show the level of least deadliness in force, trying to get the most positive result out of every situation. (That's why they'd rather disarm/shoot a guy in the leg than fatally kill him[In many stand-offs, there are videos online]) Again, remember, they also carry the badge to show that they are professionals in their field and in the community, and therefore should be held to that standard. Their actions weren't professional, no matter how justified.

Everything you're saying about use of least-lethal effective force applies, in the case of cop vs. CITIZEN.

A dog is not a citizen, and it isn't the cop's job to protect dogs. Sorry.

 

[JhnR]

some insensitive people in here...id shoot a fool in the face before a dog..man is cruel and evil

 

[oempls]

He could of tried less lethal like OC but I can tell you from experience it doesn't work on all dogs. A police officer is given the right to use deadly force when given his badge. He has training and guidelines to follow but ultimately it comes down to his decision and judgement to decide if deadly force is needed. In that instance I probably would have done the same.

 

[mattyICED]

Although I do not agree with shooting the dog, It comes back to the owner antagonizing the two officers and getting himself detained. He set off the chain reaction effect and unfortunately Max suffered the consequences.

 

[razr390]

He could of tried less lethal like OC but I can tell you from experience it doesn't work on all dogs. A police officer is given the right to use deadly force when given his badge. He has training and guidelines to follow but ultimately it comes down to his decision and judgement to decide if deadly force is needed. In that instance I probably would have done the same.

My older posts quote the police chief of Hawthorne Police department and he says that their department doesn't train officers for interactions with dogs. As he said that and it's quoted by him, it could cause a bad day in court for HPD

Sent from my BlackBerry Q10 using Tapatalk 2

 

[GTINAPLES]

Everything you're saying about use of least-lethal effective force applies, in the case of cop vs. CITIZEN.

A dog is not a citizen, and it isn't the cop's job to protect dogs. Sorry.

If a dog is not a citizen then why have their dogs deputized and given a proper funeral. Dogs are a lot smarter than you and I.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Dubvee]

If a dog is not a citizen then why have their dogs deputized and given a proper funeral. Dogs are a lot smarter than you and I.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Maybe smarter than you.