GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

Most CHL/LEO contacts are positive, how about yours? Bloopers are fun, but no names please, if it will cause a LEO problems!

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#16

Post by The Annoyed Man »

jayinsat wrote:Thoughts?
Nobody wins in this one, especially the poor dog.

The dog owner loses. His music was blaring loud enough to interfere with an active ongoing police crime response. He was told several times to turn it down, but he didn't because his default was to treat the cops like they were the criminals. It lead directly to them killing his dog. So now he has lost a pet that he was attached to, but he is partly to blame. Yes, the dog was just trying to protect him, but he's the one who put his dog in that position. Nowhere is it written that it's OK to interfere with a crime investigation. If he had been compliant with police, he would be home feeding Bosco Milkbones instead of trying to reclaim the body. Being a cop in Hawthorne is like being a cop in any other city with some pretty rough areas. Back in the 1980s, Hawthorne PD paid a million dollar settlement out of court to avoid a lawsuit for alleged police brutality, but I am unaware of whether or not that complaint was legit, or whether there are any continuing complaints against them outside of the ordinary for any big city department. Maybe they are bad enough to deserve that kind of in your face scrutiny from bystanders, but it would seem unlikely........especially in certain parts of Hawthorne.

Now the cops have to live with having had to shoot a dog they would have most probably preferred not to shoot. He was a good looking dog. In the end, I think that most cops like dogs just as much as the next guy, and it is probably traumatic to them too to have to shoot one. We can debate whether or not they overreacted or acted too soon. But I can easily understand how, with a dog with the size and capabilities of that one, the officers don't want to have to get hurt first before they can shoot him. And nobody thinks that a full grown rottie like that couldn't hurt you badly if it set its mind to it. So whether or not shooting the dog was the right reaction under closer inspection, the cops involved certainly might have been in fear of bodily injury from the dog, and in the heat of the moment shooting seemed like the proper response. It is a terribly difficult thing. Does he have to be bitten and mauled before he can shoot? OR, like you and me, does he have the right to use deadly force in response to the threat of deadly force?

And the poor dog was just doing what good dogs do. My dog would have done the same if I was irresponsible enough to put him in an unnecessary position to protect me. Now the dog is dead....no more belly rubs.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

chuck j
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#17

Post by chuck j »

I agree , the owner through his irresponsible and stupid behavior trying to 'show off ' killed his dog . Every move he made contributed to the death of the animal . Good dog , tried to protect blindly the one that actually killed him ,sad .

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#18

Post by Dave2 »

The Annoyed Man wrote:His music was blaring loud enough to interfere with an active ongoing police crime response. He was told several times to turn it down, but he didn't because his default was to treat the cops like they were the criminals.
Oh, is that where that annoying music is coming from? If it was really loud enough to interfere with what their activities, that changes things.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#19

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:His music was blaring loud enough to interfere with an active ongoing police crime response. He was told several times to turn it down, but he didn't because his default was to treat the cops like they were the criminals.
Oh, is that where that annoying music is coming from? If it was really loud enough to interfere with what their activities, that changes things.
EEllis posted a link to the article about it on page one of this thread. Here is the link: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_235781 ... rest-owner

From that article:
As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.

"It's distracting the officers," Swain said. "It's interfering with what they are able to hear. It's not just a party call. It's an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what's going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it's distracting them."

Martinez said the Usher song "Tell Me Again" was looping over and over.

Rosby, who pulled out his own cellphone to record the police activity, did not lower the volume.

"I do apologize if I didn't immediately comply. The music may have been a little loud but I was complying," Rosby said. "I said, 'Sir, I want to make sure nobody's civil rights were being violated.' "

A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the officers asked him to turn the music down, but he refused. Rosby, she said, responded, "It's my (expletive) radio!"

Rosby, 52, denied cursing, saying he was a Christian.
The part I highlighted in red is what made me say in my previous post that Rosby's default was to treat the cops like they were the ones engaged in criminal activity, and in the process, he interfered with the investigation of an armed robbery. I feel bad about his dog, but Rosby is an idiot. Who appointed him the guardian of an armed robber's civil rights? Since when does he get to decide that he can interfere with the active crime investigation, when he has NO knowledge.....repeat that.......ZERO knowledge of what was happening. And by the way, if he DID know, maybe he's an accessory to the crime?

When he refused to comply with entirely reasonable officer requests to turn down his stereo—which multiple witnesses agree was very loud—then he became part of the problem for officers who had bigger fish to fry than this punk with an iPhone camera. And then......stop and think very carefully about this.......he confined a large, powerful, naturally aggressive breed of dog inside a small car whose stereo was blaring SO loudly that it was interfering with a police investigation half a block away. No thinking person would deny that confining the dog INSIDE that noisebox would have heightened the poor animal's anxiety about what was happening..........and then the idiot leaves the window down far enough that a dog weighing 130 lb was able to climb out of that window.....which is to say that the window was basically fully open.

ROSBY amped up his dog's anxiety.

ROSBY refused to comply with a REASONABLE request to turn down his freakin' stereo.

ROSBY forced the officers' hand by leaving them no alternative but to either A) stop their investigation of an armed robbery and leave, or B) arrest him so that they could conclude their business. And by the way, blaring loud music at people you are trying to interrogate is an SOP for CIA agents trying to extract information from confined terrorists. Armies have used the technique on the battlefield at various times in history to demoralize their enemies before an assault. It is standard psyops stuff because it is effective. And THAT is what ROSBY was effectively doing to the police who were trying to focus on a far more important issue: an armed robbery.

And when ROSBY left police no choice but to arrest him, ROSBY's dog, for whom ROSBY was responsible but displayed a remarkable lack of concern for its welfare, tried to save ROSBY from his own retarded foolishness. And now that dog is dead, because ROSBY is the kind of person which forum rules forbid me to use the appropriate language to describe.

The cops were just defending themselves.

But AS USUAL, some people, wanting to believe that cops are always overbearing and always unnecessarily shooting innocent dogs, jumped to conclusions without reading the story. The dog was innocent. His owner was not. They shot the poor animal in self defense. If ROSBY had not antagonized police during an armed robbery investigation; if ROSBY had safely confined his dog in a car with the VOLUME TURNED DOWN on his car stereo to protect the dog's ears, which are MUCH more sensitive than human ears; if ROSBY had made sure that the window was raised far enough to confine his dog, but low enough to allow air into the car; HIS DOG WOULD BE ALIVE.

ROSBY is 100% responsible for his dog's death. Police just did what they had to do to keep from being mauled by an amped up and anxious large aggressive dog. And I have no problem with Rottweilers, but there is no denying that they are large and powerful, and they are capable of inflicting severe trauma if they attack. And like other large powerful breeds that have a natural "forward leaning" nature, in the hands of the wrong people, they can be badly raised and that forward leaning nature can be converted into an aggressive nature.

Read further down. Rosby has a long history of run-ins with Hawthorne PD, including arrests and convictions for resisting, battery and driving under the influence. Furthermore, he has a history of suing the department for everything from "profiling" to not changing their underwear often enough.....and he has lawyers retained for that purpose. How does he earn his money to pay all those lawyers, when he appears to be spending more time harassing cops than being a productive citizen?

ROSBY did not behave like a Christian, which he claims to be. He behaved like a thug whose perpetual attitude with police is one of confrontation. He killed his dog.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

texanjoker

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#20

Post by texanjoker »

ROSBY did not behave like a Christian, which he claims to be. He behaved like a thug whose perpetual attitude with police is one of confrontation. He killed his dog.
I can't tell you how many people I have fought, arrested, tracked down with my k9, ect that all bring out the Christian race card. That is right after they bashed a babies head into a wall or robbed an old lady :smilelol5:

I don't know the Hawthorne Muni code, but many have codes about audible noise from a vehicle that can be heard so many feet away. There is also state law regarding noise. In addition there are laws about obstructing the police.

I am amazed how this thread is more supportive then normal of the LEO because of the video, but when there is no video the forum in general goes up in arms about whatever action the LEO did w/o any proof or investigation. This video is a perfect example of why dogs get shot by the police and public alike. People forget that watching a video is not the same as being the one at the end of the dog or whatever else is happening. The person in real life has the real fear, senses, adrenalin and their training to rely on.

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#21

Post by Dave2 »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:His music was blaring loud enough to interfere with an active ongoing police crime response. He was told several times to turn it down, but he didn't because his default was to treat the cops like they were the criminals.
Oh, is that where that annoying music is coming from? If it was really loud enough to interfere with what their activities, that changes things.
EEllis posted a link to the article about it on page one of this thread. Here is the link: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_235781 ... rest-owner

From that article:
As some, including resident Gabriel Martinez, aimed their cellphones at the scene to record it, Rosby drove up in his rented black Mazda. Swain said Rosby stopped in the intersection with music blaring from his windows. Officers told him to turn down the music because they were trying to hear what was happening down the street. Rosby pulled forward, parked and got out with his dog, but left the music still playing loudly.

"It's distracting the officers," Swain said. "It's interfering with what they are able to hear. It's not just a party call. It's an armed robbery call. The officers need to hear what's going on with the people being called out of the residence. That music in his car is bleeding over and it's distracting them."

Martinez said the Usher song "Tell Me Again" was looping over and over.

Rosby, who pulled out his own cellphone to record the police activity, did not lower the volume.

"I do apologize if I didn't immediately comply. The music may have been a little loud but I was complying," Rosby said. "I said, 'Sir, I want to make sure nobody's civil rights were being violated.' "

A neighbor, who asked not to be identified, said the officers asked him to turn the music down, but he refused. Rosby, she said, responded, "It's my (expletive) radio!"

Rosby, 52, denied cursing, saying he was a Christian.
I'd missed that link... :oops:
This new (to me) evidence makes me inclined to agree with your assessment.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

Topic author
jayinsat
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:55 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#22

Post by jayinsat »

After seeing the first video, I thought the LEO's were blaring the music. It wasn't until after watching the second that I realized the dog owner was responsible for the music. I first thought the LEO's over reacted but after reading all your assessments, I agree. The one truly responsible is the dog owner.
Armed not dangerous but potentially lethal.
CHL Application mailed 10/2/12
Plastic in hand 11/16/12

texanjoker

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#23

Post by texanjoker »

jayinsat wrote:After seeing the first video, I thought the LEO's were blaring the music. It wasn't until after watching the second that I realized the dog owner was responsible for the music. I first thought the LEO's over reacted but after reading all your assessments, I agree. The one truly responsible is the dog owner.

If the LEO's were blaring the music they would have been playing the cops theme "rlol"

philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17979
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#24

Post by philip964 »

I have posted several police shoot dog threads. I take a dim view of deadly force against dogs. Most of my posts have been about dogs in their home, followed by a police officer at the wrong address. Sometimes the dog is also a Shelty or a small dog.

This is not that case. The dog was not at home. It is not a small dog. This is also a very protective dog. I have a friend who has one and doesn't lock his doors ever.

The owner was not just filming, he was playing music in his car too loud for officers to conduct their business. And failed to solve that issue.

When my dog is away from home he is on a leash. If I need to leave him in the car. He is tied up inside the car.

I'm sorry a dog died for an irresponsible owners actions.
User avatar

TxA
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#25

Post by TxA »

This -
The Annoyed Man wrote:I feel bad about his dog, but Rosby is an idiot.
&

This -
philip964 wrote:I'm sorry a dog died for an irresponsible owners actions.
:iagree:
CHL 08/00

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams – 2nd President of the United States
User avatar

probation_officer
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:55 pm
Location: Texas Forest Country aka Piney Woods of East Texas

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#26

Post by probation_officer »

I am not sure why this is getting so much publicity, the dog was lunging and the police officer stopped the threat. Case closed :smash: Is it due to the "train wreck theory" and people tuning in to watch the last 20 seconds of the video?
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 13534
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#27

Post by C-dub »

I do agree with TAM's points. All of them. However, I have had some more thoughts on this today.

It had to have crossed those officers' minds that it was very probable they might have to kill that dog when they decided to approach and arrest that man.

I've mentioned before that I trained dogs for many many years for protection. Mostly German Shepherd Dogs, Rotties, Mals, and Dobies, but also some other breeds. This dog did not want to go after those officers. He was doing that because he thought he had no choice and was going to do what he could to protect his owner. They way he went about that was to try and do as little as possible to accomplish that. He did not go straight in for the bite and when he finally did bite it was only a nip. This dog was not trained and was not confident. Had any of those officers been a K9 handler he might have recognized that and could have handled the dog so that he didn't have to be killed.

A better course of action, to me, would have been to recognize the danger of the dog before laying hands on the guy in the first place and have the man get his dog properly secured first. They might have even told him he was going to be arrested and for the safety of his dog he should safely secure him by tying him up to a pole or something outside the car first. To me, if I were one of those officers, there is just no way I could have approached that man without knowing that dog was going to be a problem if the owner did not secure him.

Knowing what I know about dogs, though, I could have handled this dog without having to shoot him. I would not expect most LEOs or even 25% to have that kind of knowledge and it's unfortunate in this and many other cases.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
User avatar

Excaliber
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6185
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: DFW Metro

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#28

Post by Excaliber »

C-dub wrote:I do agree with TAM's points. All of them. However, I have had some more thoughts on this today.

It had to have crossed those officers' minds that it was very probable they might have to kill that dog when they decided to approach and arrest that man.

I've mentioned before that I trained dogs for many many years for protection. Mostly German Shepherd Dogs, Rotties, Mals, and Dobies, but also some other breeds. This dog did not want to go after those officers. He was doing that because he thought he had no choice and was going to do what he could to protect his owner. They way he went about that was to try and do as little as possible to accomplish that. He did not go straight in for the bite and when he finally did bite it was only a nip. This dog was not trained and was not confident. Had any of those officers been a K9 handler he might have recognized that and could have handled the dog so that he didn't have to be killed.

A better course of action, to me, would have been to recognize the danger of the dog before laying hands on the guy in the first place and have the man get his dog properly secured first. They might have even told him he was going to be arrested and for the safety of his dog he should safely secure him by tying him up to a pole or something outside the car first. To me, if I were one of those officers, there is just no way I could have approached that man without knowing that dog was going to be a problem if the owner did not secure him.

Knowing what I know about dogs, though, I could have handled this dog without having to shoot him. I would not expect most LEOs or even 25% to have that kind of knowledge and it's unfortunate in this and many other cases.
I agree with both you and Philip964.

In this case, the owner in effect killed his dog by exposing him to a situation where his loyalty to his owner put him in jeopardy and the officers present didn't have the dog handling skills to manage the animal's predictable actions without deadly force.

This is a truly sad case, but not in the same category as those where officers respond to the wrong address and kill a nonthreatening family pet.
Excaliber

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.

chuck j
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#29

Post by chuck j »

I agree ExcaliIber , this idiot killed his own loyal pet to make himself seem like 'somebody ' .

texanjoker

Re: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog

#30

Post by texanjoker »

C-dub wrote:I do agree with TAM's points. All of them. However, I have had some more thoughts on this today.

It had to have crossed those officers' minds that it was very probable they might have to kill that dog when they decided to approach and arrest that man.

I've mentioned before that I trained dogs for many many years for protection. Mostly German Shepherd Dogs, Rotties, Mals, and Dobies, but also some other breeds. This dog did not want to go after those officers. He was doing that because he thought he had no choice and was going to do what he could to protect his owner. They way he went about that was to try and do as little as possible to accomplish that. He did not go straight in for the bite and when he finally did bite it was only a nip. This dog was not trained and was not confident. Had any of those officers been a K9 handler he might have recognized that and could have handled the dog so that he didn't have to be killed.

A better course of action, to me, would have been to recognize the danger of the dog before laying hands on the guy in the first place and have the man get his dog properly secured first. They might have even told him he was going to be arrested and for the safety of his dog he should safely secure him by tying him up to a pole or something outside the car first. To me, if I were one of those officers, there is just no way I could have approached that man without knowing that dog was going to be a problem if the owner did not secure him.

Knowing what I know about dogs, though, I could have handled this dog without having to shoot him. I would not expect most LEOs or even 25% to have that kind of knowledge and it's unfortunate in this and many other cases.
Seriously - no disrespect intended, but you were not there. After you put yourself into that position, which would be as a trained LEO in this scenario, we would see what you would have done. I added the trained LEO for a reason. I did not say that to bash on CHL's, just to bring up the training issue. LEO's are trained to stop a threat. You develop muscle memory from repeated firearms training to respond to a threat. That combined with his fear after the dog bit him or tried to bite him was more then enough to cause him to fire at the dog. I too know dogs and am a certified POST K9 evaluator. This means I am allowed to say whether a police dog can or cannot hit the streets of CA. Had that dog lunged at me like that, if it was safe, I probably would have shot it as well. I know first hand from 5 years with police k9's what that dog is capable of doing. Sure it was trying to protect it's owner, no dispute there, but that doesn't negate the fact it was attacing an officer on a city street. Sure looking after the fact it appears it wasn't trained to bite and hold, but how are you going to know that at that moment? You won't. Regardless of training had he not shot that dog, it would have continued the attack. if that had been a temperament test to see if that dog would do more then bark, it would have passed. If you know protection dogs, most won't pass the temperament test, and most we tested for police work that were already trained didn't pass our tests.

It would have been a poor decision to let the suspect back into the car as that is something you never do. Reasons include the suspect can arm himself, take off, let the dog loose, ect. Again letting a suspect back into a car is something you do not do. He had put the dog up and walked away from the car. They didn't know the dog was going to bust out. I blame the dog owner and nobody else. Unfortunately that awesome rott paid the price. I love rotts. Had one over 14 years. They are GREAT dogs.

One other side note to add: Where we see dogs a lot are on traffic stops. You walk up on the car, and the owner doesn't restrain a dog you can't see due to tint, ect and it lunges at you out the window. That will scare the daylights out of you. When making an arrest on a traffic stop dealing with dogs is an issue as well. These stops probably happen daily w/o a dog being shot. The gang members are rolling with their pits or rotts for that exact reason. Carrying a noose helps on those occasions.
Post Reply

Return to “LEO Contacts & Bloopers”