Concerning the illegal arrest of a man for filming police activities and subsequent unnecessary shooting of the man’s dog, the Hawthorne, California Police Department responds.
Rosby was arrested for Obstruction of Justice for playing loud music, walking a large dog, and getting too close to officers according to police.
The statement said all of that in its entirety distracted officers from their dangerous work.
And more.
Lt Swain, however, alleges that the officers were also looking out for Rosby.
‘I know it’s the dog’s master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we’ve got a guy handcuffed that’s kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him too,’ Swain said.
And in my original article, a commenter remarks as follows (let’s assume that he doesn’t work for the Hawthorne PD but that his comment is similar to what many officers feel).
Do you here that music? That was from this idiots car. This clip shows just the end of the encounter not the moron stopping in the middle of the intersection, being told repeatedly turn down the radio which was causing an issue with cops hearing what was going on in an armed standoff. This idiot never turn down the radio and didn’t secure his dog which is what led to his dog being shot. !00% (sic) this morons own fault!
So let’s deal with loud noises first. The commenter wants us to believe that the police who use flash-bangs during their raids, who many times discharge multiple rounds from their weapons, who use loud speakers, and who have radios and headsets to communicate, were bothered my music playing a hundred yards away. Horse shit.
The next thing they want us to believe is that they were protecting the man against – here it is – his own dog. This is so stupid that spending time on a rebuttal would make me look stupid. And if you believe this excuse you’re stupid.
Next, it was walking a large dog, or something. Do you hear that loud noise? No, not music playing. That loud noise is the sound of the impenetrable blue wall closing in behind the officer who arrested the man and shot his dog. They will find an excuse and justification, as God is their witness. They will protect their own.
I maintain the following. First of all, the police caused the incident by trying to arrest a man for filming their activities. It was the fault of the police. Second, the dog wasn’t a menace. Men usually know how to handle large dogs, and many women I know. But this officer wasn’t the equal of most men (or even some women). He was a coward, and could have handled the dog without the use of deadly force (e.g., speech patterns, commands, physical actions, pepper spray, etc.). This pitiful officer needs to spend more time doing man-things.
But the police are always right. If they do it, then it must have been justified, because, you know, they are after all the police. It has a rather deontological ring to it, doesn’t it? Besides, the man was one of those bad, ahem, you know, Negros, and must have been up to no good.
The reality of the situation is that he wasn’t breaking any laws, shouldn’t have been arrested, and shouldn’t have to endure a dead dog. And the police will not be held accountable, the system of law will defend them, and the judges will look the other way. It’s the way it always works.
