1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

On tracking terrorists and other unwanted individuals

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Obamanation, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    240
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #121
    The videos I posted don't contain the shooting. The first is the events preceeding it & the second is the owner describing it. I can understand you not wanting to watch it. I didn't want to watch it twice.

    And can the police really just let a suspect go once he's been arrested?
    SEMrush
     
    Bushranger, Jul 3, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #122
    Oh. Maybe I'll watch those. I just didn't want to see the one where the dog gets killed.

    They just barely put cuffs on him. They could just as quickly remove them. It would have avoided this tragedy. They could have at least let him get his dog safely back in the car. Maybe call someone to pick him up? After, they could still take the man in if they honestly felt it necessary.

    It looks like there's a petition about this now:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/pol...ality-prosecute-the-corrupted-hawthorne-cops#
     
    Rebecca, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  3. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    240
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #123
    Sounds great in theory. I don't believe there was enough time. The dog starts heading towards the men, cop tries to grab the leash, the dog then attempts to pounce on the cop. Cop, about to be bitten, shoots dog.

    It happened quickly. As they've cuffed the dude, even if they had time to uncuff him it would be hard to say time would have allowed that option.

    It looked to me the dog was doing exactly what it was supposed to do. Protect the owner and unfortunately it paid with its life. I certainly don't blame the dog for its actions but I think, coming from the law's perspective, I would have done exactly the same thing.

    This is at the very low end of incompetence if at all imho. The dog-owner was obviously not "normal" given his actions and I certainly wouldn't be sticking up for someone intent on causing drama for the sake of it.

    There's much more serious stuff the cops get away with where our attention should be focused imho. These kinds of fights distract us away from the bigger-picture worse stuff going on and reality tells me the bloke (dog-owner) hasn't got a hope in hell of winning his case.
     
    Bushranger, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  4. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #124
    This is serious. I'm so tired of reading in the news about the police saying they felt it was necessary to kill someone's beloved pet. If absolutely necessary for defense, they could have used non-lethal means ie pepper spray.

    Police Leave Note for Family: We Killed Your Dog

    New York veteran says police killed dog during botched drug raid

    Police shoot dog defending unconscious owner

    Central Texas dog shot by police officer after warrant mix-up

    For everybody tired of hearing about police officers shooting family dogs for no good reason, here's a story about ... police officers shooting family dogs for no good reason

    Incoming Police Chief Shoots Woman—Intended Target: Dog

    Decision on cop who shot dog 'for no reason'

    Cop who shot dog fired for 'shooting bird

    Cops Shoot Family Dog Just Because

    Oh Wait! I left here, then thought I should go sign that petition. I just searched under "dog, police" on Change.org...It's full of petitions against police officers shooting dogs: http://www.change.org/search?utf8=✓&q=dog,+police&commit=Search

    Sad.

    Anyway, I better go do something...
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
    Rebecca, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  5. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    240
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #125
    You haven't watched the video. You can not know if what he did was right or not.

    You bring up other cases, which may or may not be valid. That's my exact point, bring up other valid cases to argue. This particular one isn't, imho. I have watched the video.
     
    Bushranger, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #126
    Luckily being a moron is not against the law, otherwise USA will face a really serious shortage of prison space. Looking at the video, this is a serious command mistake. They were lucky that this guy was just a moron with a phone instead of a father, husband or brother of someone in that house and had a gun and would decide to shoot it out with the cops. The way he was able to get close to them, if he had a gun then half of those officers grouping together there would have been shot before they could respond. Instead of grouping the cars and themselves like that, they should have used one of the cars in the entrance of the street to close it, marked the line with police tape and one officer to guard their back and also keep away the civilians.
    In real life, you cannot demand from people not to be a moron but you can demand professionalism and correct procedure from police officers who are trained for such situations and is their job.
     
    gworld, Jul 3, 2013 IP
    Obamanation likes this.
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #127
    Drama for the sake of it? For a moment, I thought you were describing many of your posts on DP. Not normal? Self described "nutter"? I hope you don't own a pet and decide to move to Los Angeles.

    As Gworld points out, there is no law requiring you to be "normal", nor should there be. Two likes on the same thread for the communist. What is the world coming to.

    As Rebecca points out, the police execute animals regularly without consequence, and often, in my opinion, without necessity.

    Rather than fire up a rant, citing the many recent and well documented abuses of civil liberties by our law enforcement agencies, particularly those in California, let me share this story with you.

    Or perhaps this story:


    Home of the free, land of the brave. Just be careful what you say, because your speech can land you in jail, and more than likely, you will plead guilty, forsaking your presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, all to avoid the chance of facing an unconstitutionally long prison term for your non-crime.
     
    Obamanation, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  8. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #128
    You must watch the video in full, and not the edited versions, to really see what was going on. Period. You can't argue against the police until you do.

    I know it's a popular thing to bash police. It's in our nature to rebel against "the establishment" and any kind of power structure. What's pathetic is that some of you actually fall for it. The original source story made up a bunch of shit in order to sway you against the police. If you watch the video in full, you can see the guy was purposely distracting and obstructing the police work. After being asked to turn down his music, and then being asked to leave, the guy refused and continued to escalate the obstruction. He wanted to be arrested. He wanted the attention. He wanted to be involved in another race case with this police department. Whether or not walking on a sidewalk with his music up loud is a crime is not the concern. The concern is that he went looking for trouble, and found it.

    Shooting the dog is the last thing anyone wanted to happen. The fact is that the dogs owner could have completely avoided the situation. It is his fault his dog is dead. It's his fault he got arrested. I can't believe I see conservatives in this thread forgetting about personal responsibility and accountability.
     
    r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #129
    I watched the video in full, as I mentioned, and I didn't see any of what you describe. Is there some video other than the one you posted?

    Again you are losing me here. How can refusal to turn down your stereo or refusing to leave when standing OUTSIDE of the police barrier be construed as obstruction of justice? Is this one of those "broad applications" that could perhaps be extended to, "let me borrow your car" or "let me bang your girlfriend" lest you be charged with obstruction?

    You are aware that police are not "super citizens" with special privileges, right? They can't even speed on the freeway legally unless the lights are on and the lights cant be on unless there is an emergency. Oh, I know they all do it and the boys club wont normally prosecute it's own members, but that doesn't make it legal.

    Perhaps he also wanted his dog shot.

    And so he did. How much do you think the Hawthorne police department will be paying him in terms of emotional distress? How much do you think it is going to cost the taxpayers for the department to defend its actions in court?

    Have you ever had someone up in your grille, using descriptive words to describe the violent sex acts he had with your elderly grandmother? Clearly looking for trouble, which by your logic, would completely justify you in busting a beer bottle over the table and sticking the jagged glass in his jugular. After all, he was looking for trouble.

    You will not find a bigger fan of personal responsibility and natural consequences than me. The day the natural consequence for telling the police you don't like them or playing your horrid music on a public street is having them shoot your dog is the day we can officially declare this country a dictatorship.
     
    Obamanation, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  10. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #130
    You are obviously part of the crowd that is biased against police, either through past experiences or through reading articles like the one you posted that tell a different story than reality. I can't comment on that specific department, or California cops in general. Since you live there you probably know more stories and examples of police brutality or cops abusing their power and I don't intend to say that it doesn't happen everywhere in the country. All I am getting at is that the cop that pulled the trigger on the dog did what he had to do and his actions were fully justified.

    As for the obstruction of justice charge, I'll also defend the police and say that they had the right to arrest him. The only thing police need is a reasonable belief that you committed a crime. It is reasonable to believe turning up music and shouting at police during an investigation is obstruction of justice, especially when the police asked him to turn it down and even leave. If what you say is true, and the guy didn't do anything illegal, he can fight it in court. As I said before, nothing productive is going to come out of arguing with police at the scene. Any attorney will say to shut your mouth and not say anything if police decide to arrest you because the determination if you are innocent or guilty happens after the fact.

    So if you believe so strongly in personal responsibility then the only conclusion to this story is that the police were forced to shoot the dog because of the owners actions prior to the shooting. Everything that happened in the video was controlled by the dog owner. Indirectly, his decision to continue doing things that could be considered obstructing justice caused the dog to die. There is no refuting that statement.
     
    r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  11. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #131
    They could have allowed him to control the dog. It's not as if they were arresting a serial killer from America's most wanted. They were arresting him because he was videotaping them and had a big mouth. They thought he was a pain in the ass. He was probably released to the public anyway after less than a day. So how much of a threat was he really? If they didn't want to allow him to do that, at least use a non-lethal means like pepper spray. I think excessive force is the earmark for police brutality. For many of us, our dog is a member of the family.
     
    Rebecca, Jul 3, 2013 IP
    Obamanation likes this.
  12. Bushranger

    Bushranger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    240
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #132
    So the cop was supposed to take the bite whilst the other cops uncuff their suspect and control his dog. I get it now. Crazy coppers, fancy not wanting to be attacked by some scum-suckers dog. No wonder nobody likes them.
     
    Bushranger, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  13. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #133
    If you watch the video, the moment the police start walking toward him from a distance he prepares to be arrested. He calmly walks his dog to the car and puts him inside. You cannot possibly turn this around and say the police should have made sure the dog was secure. Going back to responsibility, its the owners job to make sure the dog is secured. After he put the dog in the car he walks toward the police with his hands behind his back. To me that says, "Ok I am ready to be arrested please take me to jail". He wasn't saying, "Let me make sure my dog can't jump out of the window". At first he dog was not a problem and didn't appear to be able to escape. It wasn't until the guy started jumping around and struggling that the dog got out.

    By the way, my dog is a member of my family as well. But the sadness of the event shouldn't distract everyone from how much of an idiot this dog owner was. Everyone is taking their anger out on the police which were justified in every action they took. While it may have not been the best course of action, it was justified.

    Police live in constant danger. They have to be more alert than you and me. Imagine what is going through your head when you go to arrest the guy. Does he have a gun? A knife? Is he going to take a swing at me? Is he going to try and run? Where is my backup at? Then add in a barking dog that makes them even more nervous. Police just want to go home at the end of the day like all of us. It is in their best interest to reduce risk to the public, themselves, and their fellow officers. In the heat of the moment the training kicks in. They don't have lots of time as we do now sitting here at a computer to think about the best course of action. Sometimes it just happens. When the dog ran over they didn't know its intentions, but they do know it poses a risk to their lives. Drawing the gun is the first thing a cop does in response to a threat to their life. It's their protection. The reflex of drawing the weapon just happens after so much training. In this case who knows if pepper spray would have stopped the dog before biting an officer. They did what they thought they needed to do in the heat of the moment and you can't really knock them for that in this case. Sure it was sad, but like I said before, the dog owner let it happen, not the cops.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
    r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  14. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #134
    What evidence do you have that those stories differ from reality? There are many more like them. That type of talk sounds like when liberals try and deny news is factual because it is Fox reporting it.

    Watching the video, it didn't appear that he argued with the police at all. In fact, he walked to them, turned around, and presented himself for arrest.

    Regarding what a cop needs to arrest you and reasonable suspicion, as well as your earlier support for NSA domestic spying programs, I think your positions represent well the rift in the Republican party, and a corresponding rift in the Democratic party that has yet to manifest itself. Basically, modern day Republicans (and Democrats) fall into two camps.

    The big government guys who thought everything Bush did was the cat's meow, and who fully support government and police departments that are above the law, even under Obama. Lets call these Cheney/Bush/Romney/Hannity/Obama/Biden/Pelosi Republicans.

    The small government guys may have liked Bush's honesty and character, but despised his No-Child left behind, Medicare part B, Wall St. bailouts, expansions to the Patriot Act, the never ending war, the indiscriminate warrantless spying and invasion of privacy. We can call these the Cruz/Stossel/Paul/Lee/Nader/Greenwald/Powers Republicans.

    There are enough laws on the books that you(RedTarget) can be arrested today on suspicion of violation of some law, even if you are later released. That used to be called false arrest, and could cost an officer his badge. Today, a group of officers can beat you to death and will likely not even be dismissed from the force, especially if you are poor or are a minority. Think about that next time you are bragging about the very minimal requirements a cop needs to cuff you and process you. You are bragging about a police state. If you want to truly deal with crime, you need more citizens like George Zimmerman and Joe Horn, not more cops with unlimited power to incarcerate you and shoot your dog.

    I find that argument very curious. Let me present you an analogous.

    If Americans believe so strongly in personal responsibility then the only conclusion to the 9-11 story is that Al Queda were forced to hi-jack several airplanes and fly them into symbols of America's financial power, because Americans fully supported nation building and intervention in foreign politics. Everything that happened on 9-11 could have been prevented by Americans. Indirectly, their decision to continue doing things that could be considered intrusive in foreign politics caused 3000 people to die on 9-11-2001. There is no refuting that statement.

    Yah. I've heard that argument before.
     
    Obamanation, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  15. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #135
    The fact that you bring up George Zimmerman is sort of ironic. The end result of that is a person dead. In the dog example you attack the police for abusing their power when they arrested the owner and using excessive force when they shot the dog. You said they shouldn't have arrested the guy because nothing he was doing was illegal. But in the Zimmerman example you think its perfectly acceptable for non-police to abuse thier power and follow someone who also was not doing anything illegal. In that case the results are even worse with a person being dead. In the dog example, you attack the police for taking unnecessary actions which led to the dogs shooting, but in the Zimmerman example you praise George for taking similar unnecessary actions that led to a person being shot.

    I'm not one of those people that believes Zimmerman is guilty, but I also like to be as consistent as possible with the way I feel about issues. What if a policeman had followed Martin that night and shot him? Would your reaction change simply because it was the police and not an armed citizen? It doesn't make sense that you would feel one way in the dog story but flip it around for Zimmerman.
     
    r3dt@rget, Jul 3, 2013 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #136

    His support for domestic spying is not surprising because he believes Bush when he told them that the US Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. He has no problem to get rid of the US Constitution if this protects him from the big bad Muslim Bogeyman. ;):)

    Home of the free, land of the brave? Nope, Home of the spied on, Land of the sissies. :)
     
    gworld, Jul 4, 2013 IP
  17. Rebecca

    Rebecca Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,458
    Likes Received:
    349
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    325
    Articles:
    14
    #137
    The police do have a difficult job. That never justifies excessive force. If they're not up to the challenge, they should find a different line of work. You could have just as easily argued: "...Police live in constant danger. They have to be more alert than you and me. Imagine what is going through your head when you go to arrest the guy. Does he have a gun? A knife? Is he going to take a swing at me? Is he going to try and run? Where is my backup at? Then add in a schizophrenic homeless man that makes them even more nervous. Police just want to go home at the end of the day like all of us. It is in their best interest to reduce risk to the public, themselves, and their fellow officers...." I think you're giving them too much leeway. Police actions should be judged. I think they had an opportunity to diffuse a situation, by allowing the man to get his dog under control. Or again, used non-lethal methods. They do work. This dog didn't even attack. They just shot him four times "just in case."
     
    Rebecca, Jul 4, 2013 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #138
    [​IMG]

    Hard at work and using excessive force on poor donut. :)
     
    gworld, Jul 4, 2013 IP
  19. r3dt@rget

    r3dt@rget Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #139
    Again, watching the video I clearly see the dog appear to lunge at the officers. Whether it was aggressive or just a reaction I cannot tell. Watching the video we can all form our own opinions. But all I am saying is that the officers that were there in that moment had the most information and they could feel the risks to their lives, unlike us just sitting at a computer. Whether or not it was excessive force is debatable, but I feel the cop was clearly justified by taking some action to stop the dog. My overall point is that none of that other stuff should have happened, had the dog owner not been such an idiot.
     
    r3dt@rget, Jul 4, 2013 IP
  20. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #140
    It is not ironic at all. Zimmerman is a citizen, just like any police officer, though police tend to refer to themselves as special, not "civilian".

    Following through with your police hypothetical with Trayvon Martin, had Trayvon jumped a cop, there would be no trial. Had he broken a cops nose, Trayvon's family wouldn't be sitting in a gallery watching a cop get tried for 2nd degree murder, they would be under investigation for aiding the delinquency of a minor.

    Regarding my reaction, you are right, it would not be the same. I would want a trial, or at least a grand jury review. None of these things happen when a cop kills someone. There is an internal review, the shoot is declared just, and the rest is history.

    I only mentioned Zimmerman and Horn because they are the alternative to a big government that wants to disarm you and "protect" you from everyone but themselves. You see a guy robbing your neighbors house and flee across your property, you roll out there and deal with him. You see someone acting suspicious in your neighborhood, you follow him to let him know he is being watched. That person assaults you, you put two rounds in the chest and one between the eyes.

    It sounds like what you are arguing for is a "civil" society where an almighty police force watches your every move, monitors your every phone call, digs through your grandmothers diaper looking for explosives, and shoots your dog when you mouth off. If I'm understanding your reasoning, it is to save the life of some kid with several suspensions from school for being caught with stolen watches and wedding rings, who decides to assault someone who follows him as he cases homes in a neighborhood he has probably robbed several times before.

    You'll have to pardon me if I don't find that to be Utopia. There was no greater good served by shooting this guy's dog. Just like the IRS investigations, the AP wiretaps, the Hicks demotion, and the Rosen accusation of "Conspiracy", the only thing served by such actions is a chilling effect on free speech and civil rights.

    I'm still waiting for you to respond to the following comments:

    1) My "blame the victim" for 9-11 analogy to your blame the owner for his dog being shot.
    2) Your substantiation of the claim that any of the stories I have posted regarding government overreach differ from reality.
    a) The two stories where innocent teens were arrested under terrorist charges for crass facebook posts.
    b) Any number of recent events where California cops beat unarmed people to death, without consequence
    c) The recent incident where California cops pumped 108 rounds into a car being driven by two elderly women, without losing their jobs.
    d) The constitution basis for the government collecting all of our emails, text messages, phone call meta data, storing it, and analyzing it.
    e) The use of government organizations (IRS,EPA) as tools against political opponents, for no other reason than political ideology.
    f) The accusations of conspiracy against news gathering agencies and reporters for simply reporting information leaked by other people actually under oath not to leak.
     
    Obamanation, Jul 4, 2013 IP