Oh lord...

[knewcomb]

The video in the OP doesnt show the complete event..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI

The man was instructed to turn down his music, he then proceeded to pull his car over and get out. Did he turn his music down or off? No he didnt, He did not try to remove it. In fact, it was the exact opposite. 

[Guest Keal G Seo]

The video in the OP doesnt show the complete event..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwxaTpJTyI

The man was instructed to turn down his music, he then proceeded to pull his car over and get out. Did he turn his music down or off? No he didnt, He did not try to remove it. In fact, it was the exact opposite. 

You know what I see in this video? I see a guy doing what he legally allowed to. I also see a group of people standing much closer to the vehicle than the police and can still hear everything going on around them including hushed half voices chatting back and forth. Again, this is plain and simple...the cops didn't like him recording and flexing his rights so they went to make a show of force and I am still willing to bet they got him back to the before they knew what they were going to charge him with.
What I didn't see or hear are any commands to cut the music down.

[jbravo]

I don't even know how to react to that video. Normally I am on the side of the cops in most situations, but this video just disturbed me. I don't care if it was because of loud music, failure to do what the police said, or the recording. When they were handcuffing him, it was obvious that the dog was getting excited at the way his owner was being handled. The dog did what is natural. They could have had him secure his dog. I could only think of my own dog when I saw that dog after it had been shot at least 3 times. And now a guy had to watch his dog suffer a horrible death. There was nothing in that video, that I saw that would warrant the guy as enough of a threat that he couldn't be allowed to secure that dog.

[Guest TankerHC]

I'm curious as to what the non compliance would be since the Supreme Court has already ruled that police cannot prevent you from filming them. They struck down the Illinois eavesdropping law and re-affirmed the first amendment right to free speech to film ANYONE unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which Police Officers do not. So what was this guy doing that he should have been cuffed (Or did I miss it?)

[knewcomb]

Ive mentioned it in each of my posts. Whether you think its right or not, if its an active scene and you are causing a disturbance (loud music) and you are told to turn it down and you dont comply, you can be detained. Its really that simple

[knewcomb]

In the full video, he through the intersection, cops tell him to turn it down because its an active scene, he pulls to the curb and gets out, doesnt turn his music down, the proceeds to stand on the corner. At no point in time did he comply or even attempt to.

[Guest TankerHC]

OK, had to go back and listen a couple of times. I still didnt hear them telling him to turn it down. If it were that loud then I would think that would be interfering. However, video recording, not an issue, in compliance with 1st Amendment he can do it. Where he was standing, he wasn't physically interfering with anything.

 

As far as the dog getting shot, if the police didnt have to walk up to him because of it then the dog would not have been shot. When I saw the video first time I thought, you cant blame the cop, thats a Rottweiler, even if a puppy he is a pretty good size dog, even if a completely docile pet he did go after the cops leg. And the dog wasnt all that docile considering that the owner was yelling for the dog to get back and he still went after the cop.

 

I was more interested in the reasoning behind the cuff's. But thinking about it, and I am not a LEO, maybe a LEO can chime in, but wasnt there also a case a few years ago that ended up in front of the SCOTUS that also affirmed that it was legal and within Constitutional boundaries for a LEO to cuff anyone in the area of a crime without that person(s) actually being arrested in order to control the scene? I think it had something to do with police going into a crime scene and cuffing a bunch of people who were not participants.

[whitewolf001]

Ok, the dog lunged at him first? Did we all watch the same video? He reached for the dog "trying" to control the situation and instead of macing with a less than lethal option he goes to what should be a last resort, this is the fault of everyone involved, not just one sided. :2cents:

[knewcomb]

What if the mace had not worked? Mauled arm? No longer able to close fist due to nerve damage from said bite? The events leading up to the lunging of the dog could have been handled better but thats irrelevant at the point that this 3 yr old 130lb "puppy" is about to sink its teeth in.

[whitewolf001]

What if the mace had not worked? Mauled arm? No longer able to close fist due to nerve damage from said bite? The events leading up to the lunging of the dog could have been handled better but thats irrelevant at the point that this 3 yr old 130lb "puppy" is about to sink its teeth in.

 

Again, he should NOT have reached for the dog, never do that to a dog you don't know. That's a quick way to end up in a hospital, this should be canine 101 which if your a LEO should have some experience with but I digress as it sounds as if I support either side which I don't, I feel bad for both the LEO's and the feller with the pooch but they both did stupid crap which led to that inexcusable event. He also had a Taser fyi but again, I digress.