Hawthorne, CA police arrest man for videoing them, shoot his dog

Spocko sez, "What are the current rules for filming police in the state of California? This man seems to believes that he should be arrested for filming the police and offers himself up for arrest after clearly holding his phone up to film them. He places his dog in his car and is arrested. While handcuffed and being led away, the dog jumps out of the car to go to the man. The police see the dog as attacking them and when it doesn't stop, shoot the dog several times. Would this had happened if the man (and the police) knew the law about filming police in public in California?" Warning: Video contains violence and language

Hawthorne, Ca Police Kill Dog(1) (Thanks, Spocko!)

Notable Replies

  1. Considering the fact that torturing and/or killing animals is considered a symptom of sociopathy, I'd say the cause has more to do with wanting to mentally torture the owner in a permanent-yet-legal way. Long after the cuffs are off and the man is sent on his way (without an apology), his dog will still be dead. Take that, citizen!

  2. I think this guy knows exactly what his rights are. He's one black guy and they're two white cops with guns.

    And according to this article:

    The 52 year old has six complaints against Hawthorne Police and has
    even filed a lawsuit alleging that one officer broke his rib.

    Rosby says that one of the officers named in the lawsuit spotted him.

    ... and so they killed his dog. The world really could use a proper slur against white people, because that's the only thing that seems appropriate right now (and yes, I'm white). Disgusting.

  3. Gizmodo has answers!

    "The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don't physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

    Twelve states-California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington-require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

    However, all but 2 of these states-Massachusetts and Illinois-have an "expectation of privacy provision" to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it's technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police."

    http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police

  4. There's a whole spectrum of possible responses between doing nothing and shooting. But shooting first certainly sends a message.

  5. Oh the officer did nothing wrong? What about arresting the dog's owner in the first place? Then the whole situation would have been avoided in the first place. What about tazing or pepper-spraying the dog? What about shooting the dog only once? It's not even clear the dog was attacking the cops.

    I don't blame you for being worried about your dad's safety, but good to know that you think killing things is an ok way to solve all your problems. Thanks, but no thanks, Benito; and before you accuse me of pulling a strawman, you clearly stated:

    I would always want him to do everything possible to protect himself -
    including shooting a dog.

    People are always more important than animals. Always.

    Oh yeah, and I'm sure the fact that the dog's owner had a pending lawsuit against one of these officers (it's unclear to me which officer, however) had nothing to do with the cops behavior.

    An innocent dog is more important than a corrupt pig.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

59 more replies

Participants