It is because police are supposed to de-escalate a situation.

Everything the police did before shooting the dog only escalated the situation.

They unjustly detained this man, and it is no ones fault but the police for trying to stop this man.

In the video, the cop approached the dog with his gun drawn. Not his taser. His gun. He had it in his mind beforehand that if the dog was to come near him, ONLY deadly force would be used.

This kind of stuff might trigger random vigilante hate killings of law enforcement officials.

I might shoot the dog with a taser.

Or pepper spray.

There were many other officers there. All of them armed with pepper spray and tasers---why choose the lethal weapon first?

Those people saying the Cop did nothing wrong, what if This was you, and your Pet? The dude was playing Music, and Recording Public Activity, nothing thats against the law.

He shouldn't have been detained in the first place. They even said he was resisting when they first started cuffing him which he wasn't.

The cop who shot the dog, came over with his gun drawn. He was already going to shoot the dog, why else would you have your gun drawn?

He didn't reach for the leash, he went for the dogs collar. the owner was already trying to calm down his dog, and had already said "Max, No!." the dog then backed up, because he listened.

This only happened because of the police. Arresting someone for doing nothing illegal at all.

The PD then has the balls to lie in their Press Release, despite there being a video of the whole thing.

I hope the owner puts the cop on the street.

Harassing? He's recording public activity, just like the person who shot the entire video was doing.

The owner had it under control, until the 3rd cop came over. He reached for the Dogs Collar, hence why the dog lunged. The dog felt thretenned because not only was his owner being detained, but one of the men detaining his owner was trying to grab him.

The police are at fault for un-lawfully detaining a man, that's recording public activity.

Welcome to America, the Police State.

My understanding of the situation as followed. -Police show up to a scene and negotiations are taking place to deescalate an armed robbery scene or some high tension situation. -Man shows up with blaring music. -Cops ask him to turn it down - From the video and the sound it sounds like he may of turned it down a little bit but not much. -He starts pacing in the video(as an officer this sends of alarms) -Then he starts yelling at the officers asking racially charged statements such as "why arnt there no black cops". -Man puts dog away no doubt knowing his dog could possibly harm someone or be violent.(officer red flag) -Cops DETAIN him. There is a difference between detain and arrest. -Dog jumps out of window. Mind you this dog the owner put away in the car while noticing officers approaching him. -Officer draws weapon - Officer tries to gain control of animal with a few failed attempts. -Dog lunges and officer fires a few rounds into the animal with caution and firearm control. Now from the video and the limited amount of time of the situation being filmed i can see how many people can come to the conclusion that this is an infringement of rights but like others have said there was quite a few people recording the event. The officer was ensuring officer safety. The officer has every right to use lethal force when it comes to animals. From the previous red flags displayed by the man in question who was DETAINED and his actions with the dog the officer felt it was necessary to draw his firearm. Also i wanted to point out with the situation going on and the officers trying to do their job what about the possible victims of that situation this man was taking away from? From the short video and watching this i personally find the officers actions justified. Now saying this there are ALOT of injustices done by the current police forces and thos are not to be excused. I do believe in filming the police for this reason. Video analysis. I do not condone animal cruelty and i wish this played out differently. I just find everyone freaking out on this video a tad weird honestly. If you think this is violent than clearly you have not seen some of the more important videos that encompass a conspiracy factists stance on many issues that we converse and read about on this subreddit ie. Baghdad airstrike video

Then he starts yelling at the officers asking racially charged statements such as "why arnt there no black cops"---first I've heard that part.

But I agree with you, he was an idiot to just stop right there with music blaring and with a Rottweiler. The cops were in a dangerous operation and this guy shows up like it's a party. He must have been high or something

What right do they have to arrest him at all? He was behind the barricade. There was no music playing. Theres people all the time that get arrested for video taping police. It's completely legal, but the police think they are above the law.

Again, they have no legitimate claims to arrest him at all. I guarantee if he was to Sue, and this went to court the PD would be found guilty of unlawful detainment, among other things.

there is a difference between detain and arrest.

Again, the Dude was behind the Barricade, recording. They had no right to even Approach him in the first place.

Again, the 3rd Cop came around with his weapon already drawn.

Again, that same cop went for the Dogs Collar, and only tried to get "Control" of Max Twice. The dog was trained, and listened to his owner. When he said "Max No!" the dog stepped back, and only stepped forward when the 3rd officer came in.

I guarantee if that 3rd officer didn't come in, or didn't have such a happy trigger Finger, nothing would have happened.

I even showed the Video to my Neighbor, whos been a cop for 15 years. Even he says the Police had no right detain the man.

Are we more upset about the dog or the detainment of person? As far as I can tell the dog was the product of the detainment and the detainment was because person was interfering with an ongoing call. An armed robber for that matter? What if he was assailants friend and was trying to amp up the person who was robbing in the original call? There are so many factors that go into a call especially when dealing with public. The dude should of kept dog in car, kept his mouth shut, stayed calm and , video recorded the ongoing incident as an onlooker. Not become a participant. I think a good basic rule is to observe and document injustices but keep you damn mouth shut. Whether you like it or agree with it a cop has certain powers to detain and make decisions based upon the situation that he will have to be held accountable for upon review. Like I said, I'll be first one to place it on the cops IF the cops are solely to blame. Moral of story, if it doesn't involve you keep your damn mouth shut, observe and report. Once you get involved the game changes. There is a line of not taking shit from the police and being cooperative. Keep recording everyone and keep holding cops and others involved accountable but in the end this dude got his dog shot in my opinion.

He was observing, hence why he was recording, just like everyone else was. Theres nothing Illegal about recording things that take place in public, just like this incident.

You have no grounds to say that the Man and/or his dog are at fault, because these Police had no reason to detain the man in the first place. The cops went to him. The man was behind the barricade, he was doing nothing wrong.

If you think the PD did the right thing, you are obviously extremely Delusional.

So standing behind the baracade and yelling statements to the cop isn't interfering? Guess I'm delusional. Just looking at it objectively without taking sides and if they did detain him solely on the grounds of video recording why weren't other detained? There's more to this than the conclusion you and even I want to jump to. I just can't based upon this video to completely put the blame on the cops.

This country is not functioning properly.

I agree. While this is sad, it shows just how little regard for human life some people on here have. People are killed daily and no one says anything but once a dog dies, everyone freaks out.

Going along with your last statement, I really don't think they arrested him for just recording because there were others there who were obviously recording.

"Hawthorne Police Lt Scott Swain said that officers were warning Rosby to turn down the music in his car. 'It's distracting the officers. It's interfering with what they are able to hear,' Lt Swain said. 'It's not just a party call. It's an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what's going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it's distracting them.'"

Yes, and the police blatantly lied in the statement they put out.

Claiming they had control of the dog on his leash, yet it still tried to attack him. That is a clear lie, a video does not lie.

The press release clearly states that the officer tried to gain control by trying to get a hold of the leash. It doesn't say that he had control of the dog.

I disagree with you on that. The police are the only ones who escalated this. Its pretty clear they are saying this to get out of fault.

Then I guess its only clear to you. Just because you misinterpreted the press release, it doesn't mean that they are trying to cover up their actions. Why would they lie if they know there's video of it online? Doesn't make too much sense. Based on the press release matching the video in the description of the events, the blame falls on the man.

Do you think they had a just reason to detain the man?

Yes

What reason did they have to detain him in your eyes?

The loud music.

Noise laws only apply from 11pm until 8am. Outside of this time he is fully within his rights to play his stereo as loud as he wants until someone else complains.

The police officer could have come over and nicely asked him to turn down his music as it was interfering with the police operation nearby. If he did not comply THEN perhaps the officer may have a case. Otherwise, no.

But the problem is you really don't know what occurred before the camera was turned on.

Loud music is in no way a reason to detain a person as your first step in trying to de-escalate the situation at hand.

The loud music interfered with the operation going on.

Again, as a FIRST OPTION, detaining a man is not the right way to go because of loud music.

With your logic, if you were studying and someone was playing loud music, distracting you from your task at hand. Instead of asking them to turn it down, you would detain them, and then try to charge them with a crime.

If there was an operation going on that I was part of where peoples lives were at stake while I was studying, then would that work.

How were peoples lives at stake after the parties involved in the initial incident were already apprehended?

"During this evolving critical incident and the extraction of suspects from the home, Officers containing the location were interfered with by an individual."

Doesn't say they whether they were apprehended at that time.

Yes it does.

Read the next paragraph.

"Once all parties to the original robbery incident were apprehended, two officers approached this suspect..."

Read the press release.

That is from the exact press release you just quoted from.

Cmon man, it is literally the very first sentence, from the paragraph after the one you just directly quoted from.

Do you agree with me that no lives were at risk after seeing that all subjects were already apprehended when they first approached the man with the dog?

If that was the case, then there was a very small chance that something would happen that would risk someone's life. Again, I haven't really seen a timeline of events.

So you're just going to completely disregard the press release?

The same press release that you quoted?

That gives a timeline of the events.

Do you know at what exact time the dog was shot?

Why would you need to know the exact time?

You keep shifting your reasoning around time after time.

To get a sense of when the shooting happened in relation to the other thing going on.

From what I found, the dog shooting happened around 7pm.

The cops initial call was responded to at 5:44pm (that is from the press release.)

I don't understand how that changes anything.

Because they already blatantly lied, what would stop them from lying even more to cover their asses?

They had no legal reason to detain this man, saying the music was distracting the officers is complete bullshit. They didn't give a shit about the guy until he called them out for being white.

Why is it, that if the music was distracting, they did not ask him to turn it down, or send an officer over to tell him to turn it down. They had no interaction with him until he called them out for being white.

Then claim that. Not some bullshit that his music blasting was the reason. Either way the guy was unjustly detained.

So the loud music couldn't have interfered with the ongoing operation? C'mon, I know you have an agenda to push and everything but you have to realize that when it comes to these types of situations where people's lives are at stake, they take every precaution necessary.

I'm not saying that, what I am saying is that detaining the man is the not right thing to do as your first step.

The first thing they do when interacting with him was putting him in cuffs.

Also this was after all the parties involved in the initial call were apprehended.

LOL THE ARREST WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE THAT ASSHOLE WAS BITTEN IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW.