- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 806
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Ahh yes, i forgot it was illegal to take a video on a public street and speak to a police officer. What an awful guy. :rolls eyes:
what details did he miss?
As you should.
Ahh yes, i forgot it was illegal to take a video on a public street and speak to a police officer. What an awful guy. :rolls eyes:
I already addressed them with you.
The most important detail was that the police were in the middle of arresting a suspect held up in a house, who was potentially dangerous. The dog owner shows up, blasting his car radio. He was told to turn it off, since it was interfering with their attempts to resolve the matter peacefully. He refused. So afterwards they arrested him and his dog attacked.
Are you aware of some other relevant details?
I feel like that guy from the beginning of scanners
your details, if I recall correctly, dealt with rather unrealistic expectations that the cops should have reviewed how the dog was restrained by it's owner, prior to making an arrest, in the context of an active crime scene involving an armed assailant, and endangering their health to put an aggressive dog under control?
I'm not sure citing already debunked and ill-formed notions amount to details here
I believe the music was only an excuse by the PD. Why did they not calmly go up to him and ask that he turn down the music
No one debunked anything I said.
Because dogs know the extend of police powers.... :roll:The dog wouldn't have tried defending its owner if the police weren't abusing their power.
I take it you know very little of what police can do. You do, however, have much rage against law enforcement.... whether that is justified or not remains a question.Their detainment of the dog owner was unjustified and uncalled for... but in present day America, police can arrest you for next to anything, and ask questions later. Sad.
Recording them didn't seem to be the problem. But way to make new ones and ASSumptions.Note that the dog owner was recording the police with his phone, something that the police no longer allow.
And this comment adds nothing. The police may have seen the other person recording who was not causing a disturbance while they were trying to work.Funny that there was a second person recording the recorder from across the street.
Way to interject your own wrong explanation and run with it hero...This is why citizens should always have the right to record police action. If the police aren't abusing power then they have nothing to worry about.
Perhaps there just was not a black officer available at that point in time. In no way does it mean the PD had no black officers.
I believe the music was only an excuse by the PD. Why did they not calmly go up to him and ask that he turn down the music, else he could face arrest? I believe the real reason for his arrest was for filming the scene. Cops are big on intimidating citizens who take pictures/film them.
On the dog, even if an arrest was justified, why did the cops not make sure the dog was secured? They should be trained for those kinds of situations. The person was cooperative, they could have had him roll up the windows or at least take the suspect to an area where the dog could not see what was going on.
Only if you want to approach this in a biased manner.
Because dogs know the extend of police powers.... :roll:
I take it you know very little of what police can do. You do, however, have much rage against law enforcement.... whether that is justified or not remains a question.
Recording them didn't seem to be the problem. But way to make new ones and ASSumptions.
And this comment adds nothing. The police may have seen the other person recording who was not causing a disturbance while they were trying to work.
Way to interject your own wrong explanation and run with it hero...
The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.
I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.
I can't deny that aliens didn't come down and make the arrest either if we are looking at made up conspiracies.......
Anyone who calls a simple and obvious argument a conspiracy theory obviously lacks the competency or will power to make an effective counter-argument.
I accept your concession.
During an active negotiation with an armed robber, yeah, it's completely justified. Don't go to active crime scenes and be an ass or the dick police will **** you.The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.
I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.
During an active negotiation with an armed robber, yeah, it's completely justified. Don't go to active crime scenes and be an ass or the dick police will **** you.
I can accept this argument.
See Caine? It wasn't that hard.
A police department is not required to have a certain number of particular race officers on particular calls at particular times anyways.
The mans complaints were just race baiting retardednesss.
The fact is - and you can't deny this - they pursued the man with the dog because he was recording them and shouting things at them. Neither is a cause for detainment. The entire incident would not have happened if the person's First Amendment rights were protected.
I'm not enraged at all, I'm just stating an obvious fact. But I know you're (former?) law enforcement, so you will have an obvious bias.
You created a conspiracy theory and acted as if it were true..........
Ain't nobody got time fo dat.