About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

He was kinda preoccupied.

Ohh, so you think the OWNER was too preoccupied to reason with the dog, but the cops weren't?? are you listening to yourself?

Shaun · 03-07-2013, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

Ohh, so you think the OWNER was too preoccupied to reason with the dog, but the cops weren't?? are you listening to yourself?

They weren't handcuffed and being escorted away by three other men, no.

arista · 03-07-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

He was kinda preoccupied.

But he was put Forward to tell the Dog
They pushed him forward (ref - your video)

Its the Owners Fault 100%

GiRTh · 03-07-2013, 02:48 PM

Youtube video

Apparently the police were there to deal with an hour and a half stand off in the neighbourhood. Suppose if they've come out tooled up then they may as well shoot something. So there were more like a dozen police. A dozen police cant deal with one dog. Pathetic.

Roy Mars III · 03-07-2013, 02:49 PM

they were there for an armed robbery call.

The owner had his music blasting on his car radio. The officers asked him to turn it down, he wouldn't

Emmyasdfghjkl · 03-07-2013, 02:51 PM

wow that is ****ing disgusting to be honest, think a bloody police man would know how to handle a ****ing dog without killing it, stupid ****.

Niamh. · 03-07-2013, 02:51 PM

Actually curiosity got the better of me and I watched a little bit of it. The dog actually didn't lunge at the cop at all he snapped at the Police man when he tried to grab it's lead. If I were a cop in that situation I would have uncuffed the man and told him to put the dog back in the car and close the window up further........or else I'll shoot it.

Roy Mars III · 03-07-2013, 02:56 PM

I don't think you can point the blame at one party. You have to spread the blame around.

The owner should never have been there, he should have made sure to roll up his windows up, the cops should have tried to deal with the dog before shooting it.

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 02:58 PM

Youtube video

GiRTh · 03-07-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

Youtube video

Are you saying the dog was trained to attack? And I suppose you have evidence to back this up or is this another of your sweeping assumptions like the - 'in these neighbourhoods' - comment you made earlier.

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Are you saying the dog was trained to attack? And I suppose you have evidence to back this up or is this another of your sweeping assumption like the - 'in these neighbourhoods' - comment you made earlier.

It's an assumption every police officer should make for their own safety.

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Are you saying the dog was trained to attack? And I suppose you have evidence to back this up or is this another of your sweeping assumptions like the - 'in these neighbourhoods' - comment you made earlier.

Why do you think the dog got out of the car unless it was trying to protect it's owner? Clearly it got out of the car to try to protect it's owner and to attack the officers.

GiRTh · 03-07-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

Why do you think the dog got out of the car unless it was trying to protect it's owner?

WHo knows why the dog got out the car? Who knows if the dog was the biggest softy you'll ever come across? Things that are known - 4 police cars, at least three armed police responding to a stand off situation, Cali police carries night sticks too don't they? Given this you still think shoot to kill was the only action. OK then but I find it amazing that you dismiss my point about the policing in Jamaica as irrelevant cuz it looks like you'd like similar policing in your neighbourhood. If that's what you want then who am I to argue

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

WHo knows why the dog got out the car? Who knows if the dog was the biggest softy you'll ever come across? Things that are known - 4 police cars, at least three armed police responding to a stand off situation, Cali police carries night sticks too don't they? Given this you still think shoot to kill was the only action. OK then but I find it amazing that you dismiss my point about the policing in Jamaica as irrelevant cuz it looks like you'd like similar policing in your neighbourhood. If that's what you want then who am I to argue

that's totally unfair, the 4 police cars were for a completely unrrelated incident to this, the police were there to deal with a completely separate criminal activity.

The only reason the police even came over to that man is because he was harassing and abusing them.

The police were not there to deal with a dog, obviously the dog caught them by surprise and the officer feared for his/her life and shot the dog. You saw how fast it happened. all of this monday morning quarterbacking is pathetic, you have no idea how you would react if you were that officer and all of a sudden had an angry rottweiler coming at you. The Rottweiler was clearly upset about it's owner being arrested.

Samuel. · 03-07-2013, 03:02 PM

Shooting the dog was completely unnecessary. Surprised people are arguing against that.

The whole situation is a mess.

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuel.

Shooting the dog was completely unnecessary. Surprised people are arguing against that.

The whole situation is a mess.

How do you know it was unnecessary? Using Girth's logic why don't you prove that the dog wouldn't have killed those officers?

Shaun · 03-07-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

How do you know it was unnecessary? Using Girth's logic why don't you prove that the dog wouldn't have killed those officers?

That's not how proof works. Theoretically, I cannot prove the dog wouldn't have morphed into a green telephone. You can't shoot things and then ask people "PROVE IT WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED ME FIRST"

uh... because you just killed it?

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun

That's not how proof works. Theoretically, I cannot prove the dog wouldn't have morphed into a green telephone. You can't shoot things and then ask people "PROVE IT WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED ME FIRST"

uh... because you just killed it?

umm, yea, that was the point of my post, I was pointing out how silly it was to say "prove the dog would have killed the officer" It's stupid to ask for proof like that.

OBVIOUSLY the officer felt in danger though, so he or she had every right to defend him/herself.

I was responding to all the people that said that the officers needed to PROVE that the dog was going to kill them before they shot it. You cannot prove something that didn't happen. You cannot prove a negative.

GiRTh · 03-07-2013, 03:34 PM

The officer feared for his life,with 4 police cars and about a dozen heavily armed officers less than a few feet away from a dog whose owner was handcuffed? OK if you say so.

lostalex · 03-07-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiRTh

The officer feared for his life,with 4 police cars and about a dozen heavily armed officers less than a few feet away from a dog whose owner was handcuffed? OK if you say so.

WTF does 4 empty police cars have to do with it? Can you please explain to me how 4 empty police cars will defend you against an attacking Dog. Please tell me.

GiRTh · 03-07-2013, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

WTF does 4 empty police cars have to do with it? Can you please explain to me how 4 empty police cars will defend you against an attacking Dog. Please tell me.

Calm down dear .