Reply With Quote
All the other witnesses had moved out of the way - he was the only thinking that he was some crusader against civil rights and he deserved getting his dog killed.
nothing wrong with defending black people if they were in the right. don't be afraid to not be racist, doggie.
All the other witnesses had moved out of the way - he was the only thinking that he was some crusader against civil rights and he deserved getting his dog killed.
Don't you mean crusader "for" civil rights? Dude, he didnt do anything illegal. He was so far back i'd be surprised if his phone camera could even see anything tbh.
I hope someone puts a bullet in that ing got cop's head.
yes...for civil rts....
Here is what the California penal code says;
Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer
Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(2) Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes any weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(c) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove or take the firearm by demonstrating that any of the following direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:
(1) The officer's holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.
(2) The firearm was partially removed from the officer's holster by the defendant.
(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(4) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant actually touched the firearm.
(5) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the firearm away from the officer who was holding it.
(6) The defendant's fingerprint was found on the firearm or holster.
(7) Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.
(8) In the course of any struggle, the officer's firearm fell and the defendant attempted to pick it up.
(e) A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician. A person may be convicted of multiple violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.
(f) This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in a criminal act.
(Amended Sec. 258, Ch. 15, Stats. 2011. Effective July 1, 2011.)
LOL @ everyone defending the cop. Why was it so necessary to keep shooting after the 1st shot? Typical beta male responses
ing needle- cops pick a fight and then murder an animal. What's sickening is these gots will never see time for it.
i was super pissed when i saw that, but after reading what actually happened, its all on the dog owner. poor dog, stupid owner.
That's bull . They were angry about being filmed and covered their asses by making it about him playing some R&B out his car. What a couple of suckers.
The arrest seems pointless, but they did nothing wrong shooting the dog. It got loose and appeared to be capable of attacking. And if it did, it would have ed some up.
Cops are just thugs in uniforms and one has to be a thug before being a cop
The Zimmerman defense. Nice.
It's not like the dog was some kid with a bag of skittles. It was a Rottweiler clearly pissed that someone was manhandling its owner. Would you just stand there and put your arm out to calm it down?
rip
the "other" video
You go and start and then it's justified when you get your desired reaction from your provocation. Just got police doing what they do best.
Recommend watching the other video I just posted
What? I see a playing music and taking his dog out and taking video from behind the line of police cars when he sees this big police operation in the street.
dont even know why I bother
No one wants to see it again man...whats different about this version?
Idk, maybe people can see him pull up close to some of the cops(he was far away according to someone) and being warned before hand.
Most of the blame has to go to the owner. Suspect is right, if you want an educated opinion on this, you need to watch the second video (you don't see the dog getting shot in this one). The guy pulls up and stops in the middle of the street, proceeds to turn his music up even louder, pulls up to the curb, gets his big ass dog out, and stands on the corner with his chest puffed out. He knew what the he was doing. He's also a dumbass for not being able to control his dog. When the police were approaching him he should have calmly said, "let me put up my dog, it has the potential to be aggressive because, you know, it is a rottweiler and all". Secondly, he should have rowed his window up. Thirdly, he should have called to his dog as it approached, he ed up countless times.
That being said, the police man who shot the dog needs his ass kicked. Trigger-happy Mikey needs his gun taken away. What in the was he thinking? Repeatedly shooting the dog and just letting it suffer proves that he is a head. Also, reaching out to the rottweiler helped to provoke it. R.I.P. Rottie
lol nice one
what's badass?
Following someone provokes a physical fight? I didn't know Trayvon was some territorial animal.
wut
extending your arm out to brace for something isn't "reaching out to it," it's a natural reaction
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions