[untitled]
127 comments
This is a really distressing trend, right?
The growing size of cities and the creation of suburbs (especially those which do not support walking) have caused the beat-cop to become somewhat deprecated--in my home city right now there is a shortage of officers and dwindling pensions for the ones that are still on board.
So, instead of having Officer Bob the friendly cop who patrols your street, you have nameless squadcars driving seemingly at random--much like the beetles of Bradbury's literature. You have cops that are never seen, and when they are seen they typically are bad news.
This, taken in combination with the horrific perversion of justice that can occur in our adversarial system, causes a very definite sense of the "other". We have trouble feeling bad for these cops, because in a way they do not blend in with their community in a meaningful fashion. We do not help them, we do not like them, and they generally seem to return the favor.
Worse, we see an increasing attempt to bolster the average power of the cop with tools grossly out of proportion to their intended function in society: note that the two officers in this video appeared to be carrying submachineguns. What. The. Fuck.
With police seen as distinct from our communities and friends and families, and with government increasingly aloof in regulations and faceless bureaucracy, I very much fear for the next decade of the American experiment.
The growing size of cities and the creation of suburbs (especially those which do not support walking) have caused the beat-cop to become somewhat deprecated--in my home city right now there is a shortage of officers and dwindling pensions for the ones that are still on board.
So, instead of having Officer Bob the friendly cop who patrols your street, you have nameless squadcars driving seemingly at random--much like the beetles of Bradbury's literature. You have cops that are never seen, and when they are seen they typically are bad news.
This, taken in combination with the horrific perversion of justice that can occur in our adversarial system, causes a very definite sense of the "other". We have trouble feeling bad for these cops, because in a way they do not blend in with their community in a meaningful fashion. We do not help them, we do not like them, and they generally seem to return the favor.
Worse, we see an increasing attempt to bolster the average power of the cop with tools grossly out of proportion to their intended function in society: note that the two officers in this video appeared to be carrying submachineguns. What. The. Fuck.
With police seen as distinct from our communities and friends and families, and with government increasingly aloof in regulations and faceless bureaucracy, I very much fear for the next decade of the American experiment.
The police were originally on scene for an armed robbery. Since the where there because of someone with a gun it makes sense that they officers would be well armed themselves.
Probably good advice in general, but when you post a comment like this (or upvote it) on a story about police abuse, it comes off like blaming the victim. The man in this video did nothing wrong and now his dog is dead.
*edit: I should note that he was performing a valuable civic service by documenting the actions of the officers (as were the people in the car recording this video). We wouldn't be able to have these discussions without people brave enough to record our public servants' (mis)behavior.
*edit: I should note that he was performing a valuable civic service by documenting the actions of the officers (as were the people in the car recording this video). We wouldn't be able to have these discussions without people brave enough to record our public servants' (mis)behavior.
If the best advice in the US is to avoid the police you've got a very serious problem. It sounds like travel advice from a third-world country.
We do have a very serious problem. We have a paramilitary force patrolling our streets, largely fighting a fictional "war on drugs" and locking up whole swaths of our population. The poor-ish, brown-ish swath.
[deleted]
This. Completely true.
It depends on what you're optimizing for. If for your personal safety, short term comfort, or the rapid erosion of basic constitutional rights... yep, it's best to avoid whenever possible.
> Unless you have a real emergency and need assistance, it's best to avoid the police whenever possible, even if you've done nothing wrong.
You are assuming everyone's objective function is to minimize harm to themselves.
If you want to deter the police from using unreasonable force during an arrest, you can do that by filming them.
You are assuming everyone's objective function is to minimize harm to themselves.
If you want to deter the police from using unreasonable force during an arrest, you can do that by filming them.
I was about to post a similar comment. Your advice is very good, and hasn't yet been heard by enough people to have the knee-jerk "victim blaming" response attached to it.
Edit: Oops, poster above did in fact throw down the victim blaming card. Indeed, the man did nothing wrong, but he could have a live dog right now by simply avoiding the police.
Edit: Oops, poster above did in fact throw down the victim blaming card. Indeed, the man did nothing wrong, but he could have a live dog right now by simply avoiding the police.
I think many of us would like our police to be more like Andy Griffith. We pay their salaries and elect their bosses so I don't see why we couldn't have this kind of police force if we put in the time and effort to reform them.
So many questions! Why would they think it was alright to cuff the videographer? Why wouldn't they expect a dog to attempt to protect his owner? If they had successfully cuffed the gentleman and taken him away in the squad car, would they have left the dog in a hot car (a crime here in Pennsylvania)? Why weren't the other people taking videos also arrested?
I hope some of these police officers lose their jobs, but apparently the laws no longer those who are supposed to enforce them. If our president acts like he's above the law, why shouldn't everyone else with even a smidgen of authority?
In any case, the video is horrible. As a dog owner, I can imagine the poor guys sadness and I can only hope he isn't persecuted (used to be prosecuted) for "having a dangerous dog".
I hope some of these police officers lose their jobs, but apparently the laws no longer those who are supposed to enforce them. If our president acts like he's above the law, why shouldn't everyone else with even a smidgen of authority?
In any case, the video is horrible. As a dog owner, I can imagine the poor guys sadness and I can only hope he isn't persecuted (used to be prosecuted) for "having a dangerous dog".
Their story is going to be some nonsense about how everyone has to be cuffed for any interaction with police, this is standard procedure, just doing our jobs they way we were trained crap. The Police Department will regret the unfortunate necessity of shooting the dog, admit no wrongdoing, say officers acted according to normal police procedures in place in departments all over the country, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The city will wind up paying a whopper of an un-disclosed settlement, and nothing will change.
Yes, that is sad and it makes me angry too but it's hardly relevant for HN, is it?
Its laws about the use of technology, notably cell phone's with video cameras. Totally relevant to news for hackers.
well. The site is marginally about that. It seems actually more to do with the right to record officers.
Honestly does seem like pure politics to me. I don't see a discussion about how the inflation of cameras causes a rexamination of the rules, or how it's impacting things.
Frankly. That's a dubious connection at best. I know there's some people who don't like it. but I like hacker news to be about hackers.
As a citizen I find this interesting, as a hacker I don't.
Simple yes?
Honestly does seem like pure politics to me. I don't see a discussion about how the inflation of cameras causes a rexamination of the rules, or how it's impacting things.
Frankly. That's a dubious connection at best. I know there's some people who don't like it. but I like hacker news to be about hackers.
As a citizen I find this interesting, as a hacker I don't.
Simple yes?
Live in California? Own a dog and a cell phone? Enjoy Constitutionally protected freedoms? If none of the above then feel free to ignore/downvote.
I wonder if race was a factor?
Most of us carry video cameras in our pockets now. Filming police needs to become ubiquitous. There should be no police officer in the United States that doesn't know that at any time they could be being filmed and held accountable for their actions by the public they are paid to protect and serve. It is one case where I think constant citizen surveillance could be useful. After a few years of it and constant court rulings that it is protected, perhaps cops would stop yelling at people and arresting them for doing nothing wrong. Yes, I'm talking to everyone on this site. If you are walking back from grabbing a burrito and see the cops "talking to" a homeless person on the street, or pulling over a driver for running a red light or detaining someone, /you/ need to stop for 5-10 minutes, get out your camera phone, and start filming. Please. For the love of a police state run amuck.
It's a sad situation, and the officer never should have fired his sidearm at the dog, but to be fair to them, they didn't just shoot the dog with no provocation - the dog lunges 2 or 3 times at the officers with clear aggressive intent before it's shot. There are a million different things these officers could have done a lot better in this situation, like not arresting the videographer in the first place, or using pepper spray or some other nonlethal means to subdue the animal, but it wasn't like the officer walked up to the dog and shot it execution-style.
The dog's last lunge toward the officer who killed it was very fast and aggressive, and the officer had just a split second to react. He probably just reacted on a fight-or-flight instinct, and unfortunately, in this instance, it ended with lethal force.
If I was in the same situation at that split second, I might have done the same thing. I was once chased and attacked by an aggressive dog before, and I rank it as one of the most terrifying experiences in my life. Being attacked by an animal with clear intent to harm or even kill you is just so primally scary that there's no way to think and react rationally - you just do whatever you can to get away and survive.
It's a pretty crappy situation all around, and I feel terrible for the owner of the dog. I still blame the officers for initiating the situation, but I do understand why the officer reacted the way he did.
The dog's last lunge toward the officer who killed it was very fast and aggressive, and the officer had just a split second to react. He probably just reacted on a fight-or-flight instinct, and unfortunately, in this instance, it ended with lethal force.
If I was in the same situation at that split second, I might have done the same thing. I was once chased and attacked by an aggressive dog before, and I rank it as one of the most terrifying experiences in my life. Being attacked by an animal with clear intent to harm or even kill you is just so primally scary that there's no way to think and react rationally - you just do whatever you can to get away and survive.
It's a pretty crappy situation all around, and I feel terrible for the owner of the dog. I still blame the officers for initiating the situation, but I do understand why the officer reacted the way he did.
>they didn't just shoot the dog with no provocation - the dog lunges 2 or 3 times at the officers with clear aggressive intent before it's shot
the dog didn't start without provocation - they attacked his owner.
>The dog's last lunge toward the officer who killed it was very fast and aggressive, and the officer had just a split second to react.
if that dog really attacked, instead of just lounging, these fat cops wouldn't leave unharmed.
>If I was in the same situation at that split second, I might have done the same thing. I was once chased and attacked by an aggressive dog before, and I rank it as one of the most terrifying experiences in my life. Being attacked by an animal with clear intent to harm or even kill you is just so primally scary that there's no way to think and react rationally - you just do whatever you can to get away and survive.
it is you fear speaking. When dogs attack with intent to harm - they harm.
the dog didn't start without provocation - they attacked his owner.
>The dog's last lunge toward the officer who killed it was very fast and aggressive, and the officer had just a split second to react.
if that dog really attacked, instead of just lounging, these fat cops wouldn't leave unharmed.
>If I was in the same situation at that split second, I might have done the same thing. I was once chased and attacked by an aggressive dog before, and I rank it as one of the most terrifying experiences in my life. Being attacked by an animal with clear intent to harm or even kill you is just so primally scary that there's no way to think and react rationally - you just do whatever you can to get away and survive.
it is you fear speaking. When dogs attack with intent to harm - they harm.
No, no, no. You do not use pepper spray on a dog. Pepper spray gets everywhere. The officer using it is going to get hit with it too. Pepper spray would make the dog more aggressive and put the officers in jeopardy. Once the dog started attacking their only option was to shoot.
Or, maybe ask the owner to calm the dog?... like any sane person would do?
Or let go of the illegally detained man they took into custody and let him secure his dog. It's not like he was putting up a fight.
[deleted]
they could have used a taser
[deleted](3)
I hate to be "that" guy, but:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There is nothing Hacker News related here. At BEST we can tangentially relate it to our civil liberties, but that is a stretch. Let's keep things like this on Reddit and the other sites that will cover it in its entirety, and focus on technology here.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There is nothing Hacker News related here. At BEST we can tangentially relate it to our civil liberties, but that is a stretch. Let's keep things like this on Reddit and the other sites that will cover it in its entirety, and focus on technology here.
'Hacker News' is whatever news is voted up by the users. While the original article might not be about programming or startups, people might still be interested in discussing it with like-minded people. In this case it involves technology and sousveillance, which is related to a lot of issues going on that are more 'hacker' related. It might not be that interesting to you or me, but it's at the number 1 spot on the homepage, so people do want to discuss it.
No; this attitude is exactly what allows for the community dilution. "Open membership" + "front page should be a representative sampling of 'anything the membership likes'" has its asymptote at "cat pictures."
A community starts with a focus, and its core members join because they want a focused community. But they invite their friends, who aren't necessarily fully interested in the core discussion--so discussion drifts wider. And as discussion drifts, more secondary members (only somewhat interested in the core topic) and event tertiary members (not at all interested in the core topic, only in the secondary topics introduced by drift) join, until the community no longer has any core topic or core userbase whatsoever. The core members see the community as useless (because it no longer gives them anything they couldn't find elsewhere on the internet), and leave to find/start another community that actually has a focus.
The only way to stop this process, is to either disallow "open membership"--e.g. you can't invite your friends if they're not also hackers--or to disallow "front page should be a representative sampling of 'anything the membership likes'"--e.g. by requiring that people vote to a criteria other than "what you personally enjoy." The HN guidelines are an attempt at the latter.
A community starts with a focus, and its core members join because they want a focused community. But they invite their friends, who aren't necessarily fully interested in the core discussion--so discussion drifts wider. And as discussion drifts, more secondary members (only somewhat interested in the core topic) and event tertiary members (not at all interested in the core topic, only in the secondary topics introduced by drift) join, until the community no longer has any core topic or core userbase whatsoever. The core members see the community as useless (because it no longer gives them anything they couldn't find elsewhere on the internet), and leave to find/start another community that actually has a focus.
The only way to stop this process, is to either disallow "open membership"--e.g. you can't invite your friends if they're not also hackers--or to disallow "front page should be a representative sampling of 'anything the membership likes'"--e.g. by requiring that people vote to a criteria other than "what you personally enjoy." The HN guidelines are an attempt at the latter.
Exactly - and it's been getting worse.
I usually don't comment on this since it may serve to just exacerbate the problem, but this last year it seems like there has been a stronger decline in comment/article quality on HN than usual. I'm not sure what's going on - when digg started to feel this way in 2007 there was reddit and when reddit started to feel this way in 2008 I found HN, not sure what's next.
I usually don't comment on this since it may serve to just exacerbate the problem, but this last year it seems like there has been a stronger decline in comment/article quality on HN than usual. I'm not sure what's going on - when digg started to feel this way in 2007 there was reddit and when reddit started to feel this way in 2008 I found HN, not sure what's next.
I think the content here has shifted from the original focus long ago, lots of people are interested in discussing the context in which technology and the work they do takes place.
Actually, refreshing the thread now (this has taken off pretty quickly) there's very little relevant discussion, so I agree with you. I would have liked to see some discussion around the role of sousveillance but it's mostly just the typical reddit 'police are scum' discussion.
Actually, refreshing the thread now (this has taken off pretty quickly) there's very little relevant discussion, so I agree with you. I would have liked to see some discussion around the role of sousveillance but it's mostly just the typical reddit 'police are scum' discussion.
This is the argument that many subreddits on Reddit took in the beginning - the content that is voted up deserves to be where it is. What ends up happening is that the low hanging fruit, the stuff easily consumable gets upvoted 'faster' because you don't need to think about it -- you digest it, upvote it, and you are done.
If you do this with enough banal content, the users who care, the users who want the site to be about interesting and important stories, leave, and the cycle continues. It ends up turning into an "Eternal September".
If you do this with enough banal content, the users who care, the users who want the site to be about interesting and important stories, leave, and the cycle continues. It ends up turning into an "Eternal September".
Technically you're correct in that, this site is a culmination of news that gets submitted and upvoted. However, eggbrain was quoting the Hacker News Guidelines [1], when he listed the Off-Topic line. I think that this story does fall within the off-topic category (even though it is popular, like you mentioned), because it is graphic content, which is probably a crime, and just senseless violence.
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[deleted]
As much as I want more publicity for this case, I agree. I don't want HN to be completely politics-free, as issues like SOPA and PRISM are deeply relevant to the startup community, but in this case, I think Reddit and TV news have got it covered. Reluctantly flagged.
I think it's on topic -- consumer tech and rapid distribution of video disrupting how groups (in this case the cops) function and deal w/citizens. Would the situation have been different if he were filming w/google glass?
Let's see: The guy is using a smart phone to record in a public space and gets arrested (not to mention the dog).
Use of smart phones (video apps etc) in the public space and it's implications are certainly HN-relevant.
Use of smart phones (video apps etc) in the public space and it's implications are certainly HN-relevant.
This is ridiculous. A guy takes a picture of his cat in the park. He took a picture with his smartphone. Use of smartphones in a public space are HN-Relevant. Thus, we can now upload cute animal pictures to Hacker News.
You think it is a stretch that this relates to civil liberties? That's kinda interesting.
Obviusly, he meant that it was a stretch that the video belongs on HN, due to it being involved with our civil liberties.
[deleted]
Fucking disgusting. More information:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/viral-video-appear...
Apparently happened in Hawthorne, CA.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/viral-video-appear...
Apparently happened in Hawthorne, CA.
2:19 [0] in the second video is also disgusting
[0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI&t=139
[0]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI&t=139
(to anyone who hasn't seen the second video, it shows the owner pulling quickly on the leash of the dog)
I admit this is somewhat controversial. I grew up with large dogs (dobermans, german shepherds, mostly) from a young age and philosophies about this shift. That said, the dog doesn't appear to be wearing a choke or pinch collar and my personal opinion is that the action likely caused no pain or discomfort. Supporters of it would argue that it snaps the dog's attention from what it's doing (straying toward the street in this case).
That said, I understand if people find it unfortunate (or even disgusting) but to use the same word I did would cause people to infer that you might be comparing the two things (an almost-certainly unlawful arrest and murder of the dog, with the way the owner corrected him). I hope that wasn't your intention.
I admit this is somewhat controversial. I grew up with large dogs (dobermans, german shepherds, mostly) from a young age and philosophies about this shift. That said, the dog doesn't appear to be wearing a choke or pinch collar and my personal opinion is that the action likely caused no pain or discomfort. Supporters of it would argue that it snaps the dog's attention from what it's doing (straying toward the street in this case).
That said, I understand if people find it unfortunate (or even disgusting) but to use the same word I did would cause people to infer that you might be comparing the two things (an almost-certainly unlawful arrest and murder of the dog, with the way the owner corrected him). I hope that wasn't your intention.
Are you familiar with working dogs? I have had a rottweiler and a GSD and my vet (faculty at Cornell Vet School) and my dog trainer recommended using a pinch collar and doing corrections by snapping the leash.
That being said they also recommended against the long flexilead (i think thats the brand) leash and/or having the window down far enough that the dog could jump out. My dogs never would have walked in front of me on a leash like that.
That being said they also recommended against the long flexilead (i think thats the brand) leash and/or having the window down far enough that the dog could jump out. My dogs never would have walked in front of me on a leash like that.
As disgusting as it is to see the cops shoot the dog, this video appears to show the dog's owner making a series of poor decisions. "Oh, here's a SWAT thing going down, let me pull right up in my car, and then get out - with my huge dog - and check it out up close, while letting my car stereo blare."
Within his rights, sure. Intelligent, not so much.
Within his rights, sure. Intelligent, not so much.
Qualifications to be a police officer:
A.) Be pretty good at football, but not enough to go pro or college.
Edit: to the comment below, my old next door neighbor's 'star football player' but C- son got fired as a prison guard after beating the pulp out of an inmate who 'insulted his mama' just 6 months after graduating HS - the stereotype is true, especially so in the southeastern USA. This is just one of many examples.
A.) Be pretty good at football, but not enough to go pro or college.
Edit: to the comment below, my old next door neighbor's 'star football player' but C- son got fired as a prison guard after beating the pulp out of an inmate who 'insulted his mama' just 6 months after graduating HS - the stereotype is true, especially so in the southeastern USA. This is just one of many examples.
I saw you got a downvote for this comment. I think the reasons for that downvote are fair and I'm not going to defend you... but, funny story regarding your point "A":
I grew up living next door to a moderately famous federal judge. She was like a grandmother to me; brilliant woman (she passed away years ago).
She was a conservative (Reagan appointee) and definitely on the side of law enforcement. To qualify this statement without naming her, let's just say she might have presided over a case that sparked some civil discontent in Miami a while back when a cop shot a guy on a motorcycle.
Nevertheless, she always joked that "police departments are filled with those dumb guys from high school that were always lifting weights but never good enough to get a football scholarship."
So, it appears you're not completely alone in your view.
I grew up living next door to a moderately famous federal judge. She was like a grandmother to me; brilliant woman (she passed away years ago).
She was a conservative (Reagan appointee) and definitely on the side of law enforcement. To qualify this statement without naming her, let's just say she might have presided over a case that sparked some civil discontent in Miami a while back when a cop shot a guy on a motorcycle.
Nevertheless, she always joked that "police departments are filled with those dumb guys from high school that were always lifting weights but never good enough to get a football scholarship."
So, it appears you're not completely alone in your view.
Yeah, that's neither fair nor reasonable. Save your vitrol for folks who deserve it.
Unbelievably sad.
If anyone ever doubted whether memes (in the original Dawkins sense) are real, this is a good demonstration. Lately, police have just taken to shooting dogs willy-nilly.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/incoming-police-ch...
If anyone ever doubted whether memes (in the original Dawkins sense) are real, this is a good demonstration. Lately, police have just taken to shooting dogs willy-nilly.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/incoming-police-ch...
This crap happens all the time. Really disgusting abuse of power.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2012-11-20/pet-owner-...
The penalty: one day without pay.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-04-04/officer-wh...
I used to take my son to that park. I've seen loose pit bulls out there before and I've been able to handle the situation without panicking like Barney Fife.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2012-11-20/pet-owner-...
The penalty: one day without pay.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-04-04/officer-wh...
I used to take my son to that park. I've seen loose pit bulls out there before and I've been able to handle the situation without panicking like Barney Fife.
This will likely go to court and the dog owner will win a settlement for wrongful arrest.
Here in LA I regularly hear stories like this. I don't know the local stats, but in NYC apparently the city has paid out over $500million in litigation settlements, including those for false arrest. [ see http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/wrongful-dru... ]
Here in LA I regularly hear stories like this. I don't know the local stats, but in NYC apparently the city has paid out over $500million in litigation settlements, including those for false arrest. [ see http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/wrongful-dru... ]
wishful thinking. My bet is that police will turn tables on him (like they did with that girl assaulted by police at night for buying pack of bottled water) and charge him with something like endangering of a life of an officer - 3 counts.
[deleted]
The arrest was bullshit. But the shooting was self defense. The dog (what appears to be a Rottweiler... which is one of "those" breeds) made several aggressive lunges that the officers. It appears right before getting shot, it made contact with one officers arm.
The situation should never have started, but once it did, they didn't have much choice in protecting themselves. If that dog had been a dude with a rudimentary weapon on the level of a vicious dog bite, dude would have been laid out just the same.
The situation should never have started, but once it did, they didn't have much choice in protecting themselves. If that dog had been a dude with a rudimentary weapon on the level of a vicious dog bite, dude would have been laid out just the same.
I'm a bit conflicted; on the one hand I think the officers were correct to shoot the dog once it was jumping at them and was undeterred by being kicked. On the other hand killing a dog is going to get a lot more people mad at (and raise awareness of) the over-the-top reactions of officers to people videotaping cops.
> the officers were correct to shoot the dog once it was jumping at them and was undeterred by being kicked
The larger question is whether or not the officers had any business with the dog's owner in the first place. If the answer to that question is no, then none of their actions have any justification, shooting the dog included.
And unless there's more to the story about what Leon Rosby was doing (if he wasn't simply filming), then the answer to that question is in fact no.
The larger question is whether or not the officers had any business with the dog's owner in the first place. If the answer to that question is no, then none of their actions have any justification, shooting the dog included.
And unless there's more to the story about what Leon Rosby was doing (if he wasn't simply filming), then the answer to that question is in fact no.
My first thought was firing a gun with so many people standing very close. LEO's have other non lethal means that could work on a dog.
What, taze the dog (obligatory hot-dog joke here)?
Firing a gun without knowing your backstop is generally bad, but angled down and in self-defense it's not the worst thing in the world.
The dog in question was large and probably could've done some decent damage. It's not right what the officers did, but it wasn't unreasonable either once the animal went nuts.
Firing a gun without knowing your backstop is generally bad, but angled down and in self-defense it's not the worst thing in the world.
The dog in question was large and probably could've done some decent damage. It's not right what the officers did, but it wasn't unreasonable either once the animal went nuts.
I've seen quite a few stories where the police arrest people for photographing them. There really should be an non profit dedicated towards litigating these abuses of power. Its not like photographing the police in public is a legal grey area, so the proceeds from the inevitable settlements could even make the effort self funding.
The dog angle just makes this a particularly egregious abuse of power. I'd be willing to fork over a significant bit of money towards making a very public example of the officers involved.
The dog angle just makes this a particularly egregious abuse of power. I'd be willing to fork over a significant bit of money towards making a very public example of the officers involved.
Stupid mother fuckers who don't understand animals... You don't reach for a dog's face or leash while he's trying to defend his owner. The dog wouldn't have lunged if he wasn't provoked.
I was expecting a bad video, but not THAT bad... I mean, I expected they to shoot the dog and the dog drop dead, seeing the dog doing... whatever it did... when it got shot was hard on the stomach.
:(
Even worse, the owner of the dog DID put it in the car, I believe so he could confront the cops without the dog threatning them... But it did not worked :(
:(
Even worse, the owner of the dog DID put it in the car, I believe so he could confront the cops without the dog threatning them... But it did not worked :(
I am a dog lover through and through. But it is very tough to see what the police could have done differently, except maybe taser him/her instead. That dog looks like he was 70+ lbs, and he was lunging at the officer, in my view. It's very, very sad to have seen this -- I wish the window had been rolled up.
That said, yes the police did instigate this in the larger sense by (I guess?) arresting him for taping the incident.
That said, yes the police did instigate this in the larger sense by (I guess?) arresting him for taping the incident.
The police could have not arrested him for committing no crime. I'm pretty sure that option was on the table.
Yes, I agree and said as much. Once they did begin to arrest him, and the dog did jump out -- from that point, I don't see that they had much choice but to shoot the dog.
What they could have done differently is not violate the guy's civil rights in the first place. If he wasn't handcuffed, he could have easily controlled his dog.
1. Don't reach for an angry dog.
2. Take the cuffs off the guy you're kidnapping.
3. Let the victim of your sociopathic aggression calm his dog down.
2. Take the cuffs off the guy you're kidnapping.
3. Let the victim of your sociopathic aggression calm his dog down.
Also it's pretty well understood, I'd imagine especially by police officers, dogs' reactions to their owners being threatened. They either could have foreseen this, or more cynically, they wanted this to happen.
Are we really surprised by this? Think about your own experience in highschool and the type of people from that experience who are now in law enforcement? Any correlation between bullies and law enforcers?
Football players, but obviously, not very good ones.
Animal control is not 10 feet away ready with tranquilizer darts. Police need to defend themselves from aggressive animals. They can't take the chance that it's "just jumping up on them a little." They certainly can't release the man under arrest so he can restrain his dog; that potentially would have been an even more dangerous situation.
Something about killing aggressive dogs makes people seem to forget that they are _aggressive_ dogs. If it had been an aggressive bull or a bear, this would have been a non-issue.
Edit to expand on my thoughts.
Something about killing aggressive dogs makes people seem to forget that they are _aggressive_ dogs. If it had been an aggressive bull or a bear, this would have been a non-issue.
Edit to expand on my thoughts.
>They certainly can't release the man under arrest so he can restrain his dog; that potentially would have been an even more dangerous situation.
yes, the guy they illegally arrested presented real and clear danger - he was black (notice the white girl at the end of the video - she obviously wasn't a danger and wasn't arrested)
yes, the guy they illegally arrested presented real and clear danger - he was black (notice the white girl at the end of the video - she obviously wasn't a danger and wasn't arrested)
Darts take minutes to work. Even if they had them ready it won't work in time.
This story/video needs a warning. Warning: there is a graphic disgusting killing of an animal in the video.
Sorry, but what did you expect?
California Police Arrest Man for Video Recording, then Kill his Dog
nope. It's a fair point. I kind of expected the video to be turned off before that happened, or to just be a news article.
Warning: behaving like a free man in a free country will get you arrested and your dog killed.
The government power (at all levels) has become really intrusive and unchecked during the last decade i've been living in the US. You guys going the same road - 2 castes, one above the law and one under.
The government power (at all levels) has become really intrusive and unchecked during the last decade i've been living in the US. You guys going the same road - 2 castes, one above the law and one under.
The video is age restricted on YouTube.
This is sad in so many degrees. One why would you arrest someone for not doing anything? I didn't notice any treats or suspicious activity plus I think that dog situation could have been handled more properly, There are a few strong cops out there and one dog that they need a gun for? It's not a lion! misuse of power I say.
As a [large] dog owner, this is a gut wrenching video. Watching that dog roll around in agony after being shot multiple times sent me over to my dog to hug him for just being alive.
With that said, this guy is an idiot, the cops overreacted initially, and this huge ass dog let off a dozen warning barks. Once he went to protect his master from 'harm' the cops reacted in a way that put the dog into fight or flight mode.
They should be better trained to deal with dogs, and also should be brought up on criminal charges for arresting a man who did nothing wrong, and consequently killing an animal that posed no true threat to the half dozen officers on the scene.
With that said, this guy is an idiot, the cops overreacted initially, and this huge ass dog let off a dozen warning barks. Once he went to protect his master from 'harm' the cops reacted in a way that put the dog into fight or flight mode.
They should be better trained to deal with dogs, and also should be brought up on criminal charges for arresting a man who did nothing wrong, and consequently killing an animal that posed no true threat to the half dozen officers on the scene.
Why is this on HN and getting up-voted?
The questions surrounding citizen surveillance of police activity definitely have relevance on HN, the technology and software created by our industry have facilitated this on a wide scale.
reddit effect. All snowden and such anti-govt stories are being heavily moderated out in reddit so that crowd is flowing in here. This site has completely changed character (in a very negative way) in the past month. So sad and frustrating.
I know we're in a government-authority-hating mood right now, but I agree that this shouldn't be here. Hacker news is not /r/news
[deleted]
OP probably had HN and reddit open in separate tabs, just got mixed up.
What! How is this not related to HN? A lot of people here are from CA and would want to be aware of these incidents. HN guidelines clearly state that if it interests people then it is alright. And since it is clearly on top of the page, it interests a lot of people.
What to Submit -- Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I disagree with you, because this is possibly a crime, non labeled graphic content, should be covered on the TV news, etc. Therefor I think it is probably off-topic. HN is not a general cali news source in my personal opinion.
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I disagree with you, because this is possibly a crime, non labeled graphic content, should be covered on the TV news, etc. Therefor I think it is probably off-topic. HN is not a general cali news source in my personal opinion.
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link"
Also from the guidelines.
Also from the guidelines.
What if the website software has decided to turn your vote arrows and "flag" links into placebo buttons? I am certain my votes have no effect, nor do my flags; I've tested it.
Silently being relegated to a second-class account (not a "hell ban" at least, I guess) has made me less interested in participating at all. I don't even know why I'm logged in right now.
Silently being relegated to a second-class account (not a "hell ban" at least, I guess) has made me less interested in participating at all. I don't even know why I'm logged in right now.
Then trust that other people (like me) who still have privileges flagged the post already.
Some of us lost our flagging privileges by flagging all the duplicative, non-hacker-related junk on the front page the past few weeks.
I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but:
1) It relates to the general anti-gov't sentiment with Snowden , NSA, et al
2) The man was recording the police with his smartphone
Well, here comes another 7 figure settlement. The city spends so much in settlements, it is getting ridiculous.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/30/local/la-me-0701-pol...
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/30/local/la-me-0701-pol...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why are guns even used on dogs? Shouldn't there be a way to sedate aggressive dogs? I just don't understand. Getting shot by a gun as a human or dog is almost always going to be fatal.
What are you going to do? Put chloroform over its nose? Inject it with a sedative? Spray it with something?
May I ask whether you have you ever owned a dog? ;)
I can't think of any quicker and overall safer means of sedation than simply shooting it in the head. It's sad that a dog has to die, but compared to the mess an angry dog can make, its life is simply not worth much.
Not that I really want to sound like I'm defending the policepeople in question here, because that dog shouldn't have died - but it shouldn't have died because there shouldn't have been a situation where they needed to shoot it, not because shooting an attacking dog is the wrong thing to do.
(Yes, I have had a dog. I loved it very much, and it seemed to return the favour. But you have to be clear-eyed about these things.)
May I ask whether you have you ever owned a dog? ;)
I can't think of any quicker and overall safer means of sedation than simply shooting it in the head. It's sad that a dog has to die, but compared to the mess an angry dog can make, its life is simply not worth much.
Not that I really want to sound like I'm defending the policepeople in question here, because that dog shouldn't have died - but it shouldn't have died because there shouldn't have been a situation where they needed to shoot it, not because shooting an attacking dog is the wrong thing to do.
(Yes, I have had a dog. I loved it very much, and it seemed to return the favour. But you have to be clear-eyed about these things.)
I have owned a dog in past, and I was able to calm him down when he used to get angry. And I believe that would have been the case with the dead dog and the person who was in cuffs for no reason.
[deleted]
Dart guns are finicky, short-ranged, and require special training to use properly. Darts are manually loaded with the dosage before each shot, they aren't stored ready to use. They also take minutes to work if the dart hits in the correct muscle. A hit to the head or shoulder blade will just break the needle and piss off the dog.
A dart gun is useless for stopping animals that are attacking. That's why there is always someone with a shotgun ready to kill the animal that's being darted.
A dart gun is useless for stopping animals that are attacking. That's why there is always someone with a shotgun ready to kill the animal that's being darted.
Sedation is not realistic, usually only animal control officers have them and even then they usually don't have it with them.
BUT... Every officer near where I live carries a nightclub/billy stick/baton etc. I've been in situation with aggressive dogs out in the country and often a simple kick is enough to back them off... Discharging a firearm at a fast moving animal is reckless and begging for a bystander to be injured.
BUT... Every officer near where I live carries a nightclub/billy stick/baton etc. I've been in situation with aggressive dogs out in the country and often a simple kick is enough to back them off... Discharging a firearm at a fast moving animal is reckless and begging for a bystander to be injured.
I'm not sure a crippling beating with a nightstick would be a kindness--if you were the cop in question, faced with a dog that size lunging at you, you're probably not going to go for a love tap.
Beating a dog (or person, for that matter) into submission stands a better chance of leaving them alive at the end of the day than shooting them repeatedly does. But neither were necessary. The dog snapped at the cop when the cop reached for it in a high-tension situation. The cop is a complete moron.
The cop is likely following the training he was given, which is to shoot attacking animals--it's a lot cheaper to replace a dog than to hospitalize a cop, and ultimately the officer's life is worth more than the dog.
I love dogs, I've lived with several (medium and large), but you don't mess around with something like that if it decides to get dangerous.
This is the same reason that cops are trained to shoot center-mass and until the attacker is down; this officer responded quickly under stress and safely dispatched his attacker, preventing possible serious injury to both himself and his partner.
If you want to argue that the cops shouldn't have cuffed the guy, I'd absolutely agree. A polite "Now, son, why were you phoning at us?" would've avoided all this nonsense. I can't in clear conscience disagree with the self-defense the officer used.
I love dogs, I've lived with several (medium and large), but you don't mess around with something like that if it decides to get dangerous.
This is the same reason that cops are trained to shoot center-mass and until the attacker is down; this officer responded quickly under stress and safely dispatched his attacker, preventing possible serious injury to both himself and his partner.
If you want to argue that the cops shouldn't have cuffed the guy, I'd absolutely agree. A polite "Now, son, why were you phoning at us?" would've avoided all this nonsense. I can't in clear conscience disagree with the self-defense the officer used.
It works for everyone who isn't a cop, it should work for cops too.
Animal control has ways to sedate aggressive dogs; police have guns. Every police officer I have talked to has been trained to shoot a loose dog that is acting aggressive towards them.
Yes but animal control needs time to select the dose of the sedative and prepare the dart (or jab stick). This isn't a video game.
Also animal control traps or nets the animal before attempting to sedate it. You can't just stick the needle anywhere.
Also animal control traps or nets the animal before attempting to sedate it. You can't just stick the needle anywhere.
I think you misunderstood my comment, since I agree with every word of your reply. Cops don't have tools to capture aggressive animals because it's not their job and not what they are trained for.
Not what they're trained for? One of their jobs is to handle domestic disturbances and what do you find in domestic settings? Dogs. So every time a dog doesn't like what you're doing, you shoot it?
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
I think that that stories on HN about FBI abuses of power are popular because people expect more from the FBI. It's comforting to think that there is a highly trained law enforcement group that can intercede when a local department is incompetent or inadequate, and the realization that the FBI can be just as bad or even worse than local law enforcement is disheartening.