Search found 4 matches

by The Annoyed Man
Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:04 pm
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog
Replies: 51
Views: 9901

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

Mark Geragos, Rosby’s attorney, told KNX1070′s Claudia Peschiutta the police are out for revenge after Rosby filed a complaint alleging he was beat up by Hawthorne police last year.
Mark Geragos has a well-earned reputation for self-promotion and ambulance chasing. He's the male Gloria Alread. We used to live about a mile from his house. My wife knew him in high school, and my former employer and his wife were good friends with Geragos's ex. He's a real piece of work. His clients have included:
  • Susan McDougal (one of Bill Clinton's White Water Partners. Garagos got President Clinton to pardon her.)
  • Winona Ryder (for shop lifting $50K worth of jewelry)
  • Michael Jackson (child molestation)
  • Scott Peterson (capital murder)
  • Greg Anderson (Barry Bonds' trainer)
by The Annoyed Man
Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:34 am
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog
Replies: 51
Views: 9901

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

sunny beach wrote:
probation_officer wrote: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:
Like when a citizen shoots a K9 that lunges at him?
The obvious difference that the K9 was commanded by an LEO in the lawful performance of his duties to subdue a resisting arrestee. It's called "using a less lethal" means of stopping someone violently resisting arrest or fleeing a crime. :roll:

K9 dogs don't just randomly lunge at people. Are you going to shoot the cop who tries to arrest you too? :nono:
by The Annoyed Man
Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:37 am
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog
Replies: 51
Views: 9901

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

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.
by The Annoyed Man
Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:01 am
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog
Replies: 51
Views: 9901

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

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.

Return to “GRAPHIC!! Hawthorne Ca Police shoot/Kill Dog”