Posted on 07/04/2013 4:13:43 PM PDT by redreno
I could be wrong but I think the question here is what crime did the dog owner commit?
People who are saying that the officers were in the right on this arrest are either not understanding the full events with all of the players or seemingly don’t care that this situation was handled improperly. The man arrested; (his dog was shot) was video taping an incident of the cops arresting a suspect with their excessive force (was that why the man was video taping the police. The video shows officers guns drawn on that particular suspect or was he just taping the incident. Is that wrong/illegal?
So, the man taking a record of the event by camera/phone or whatever, the police officer (s) tell him that he cannot video tape though they used the reason to approach him, I suspect, was that his music is too loud. Witnesses said they were close in range to not hear loud music. That man did not resist arrest as you can see. His dog was put in the car while the window somewhat down. The dog only was trying to protect his owner after seeing the owner being ruffed up by the cops.
The video on line was caught by another witness who took the picture of the actions by the police. So, the cops got recorded on this incident after all. Yes, lawsuit fits. Not wanting to see harm to any of the officers though, I’d vote to fire them. A illegal arrest the way I see it while causing further liabilities and harm unnecessarily.
Seems pretty clear, what set this into motion was the police did not care to be on video..
Cops were very wrong, but right, wrong or indifferent... if a 130lb rottweiler is coming at me, I will defend myself.
But that wasn’t my question. My question was did he interfere with anyone? What crime did he commit since he seemed to comply so quickly when the LEOs started walking towards him. He seemed to complied immediately.
Er...He seemed to comply immediately.
But, this isn’t you and you aren’t dealing with the facts of this case. The cops seen the man had a dog but failed to control the circumstances in which that failure caused the situation to elevate. Cops have to admit when they mess up. It’s as simple as that. They don’t want to be video taped, why is that? NSA is watching us.
>> Boom.
A feckless, cowardly response.
>> 130lb rottweiler is coming at me, I will defend myself.
pussy
Just so we’se are clear,,,
If I am in my house or in my car and the police come down where I have no knowlege of what is going on....GD right I am shooting first and asking questions later. I am not living in GD N Korea! If my dogs are shot...better bet I will shoot back.
>> 130lb rottweiler is coming at me, I will defend myself.
“pussy”
Damn right.
One in its head, and just for good measure... boom again.
Who did he interfere with anyone? What crime did he commit since he seemed to comply so quickly when the LEOs started walking towards him. He seemed to comply immediately.
No?
Does this mean the dog owner did not commit a crime, but was arrested anyway?
Looked to me like the dog jumped up trying to get the kop to pet him...
Not too stupid...The video we see shows the owner of the murdered dog holding up a cell phone either taking pictures or running his video...
“Does this mean the dog owner did not commit a crime, but was arrested anyway?”
Could be. But, it will all probably shake out in a court of law. Hopefully, if he did nothing wrong, the person that was arrested and lost their dog, winds up with a big check.
It's not, "Video taping them" it's, "Taking video of them". Video tape is seldom used anymore.
I have no idea. Why did they arrest the dog owner who seemed to comply so quickly? What crime did he commit?
Did you see the dog owner interfering with the police?
Whatever crime he did commit, it wasn’t video recording the police, as the title of the article claims.
Is that what the police said?
Did you watch the video?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.