Police Shoot Dog after they arrest man for shooting video of them.
Another one that will make you sick.
Jun 30, 2013.
Police SHOOT a man’s DOG after ARRESTING him for doing NOTHING WRONG.
The citizen did nothing illegal. He was taking video of police in a public place. Courts have already ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in a public place, and that it is completely legal for someone to record you while you are in public.
In fact, In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights. And it wasn’t the first court to do so. So did the 7th Circuit in 2012.
Somebody please tell that to the cowards in Hawthorne, California.
The situation escalates at about 2 minutes into the video. Notice the military-style rifles being carried by the police at about 2:55 while they illegally arrest the citizen. The dog jumps out of the car to his master’s rescue, but is shot at about 3:20.
When the dog saw his master was being abused he went to his aid like any loyal dog would.
The citizen did NOTHING WRONG. The POLICE are COWARDS, and the DOG is a HERO.
And YouTube, courtesy of Google are cowards too. This video was uploaded yesterday, June 30th, 2013. Take a look below:
Google misleads YouTube viewers by Lying about How Many Views The Video Has Received
YouTube reports “300+” views, while at the same time showing over 2600 Thumbs ups. Come on Google. You are cowards too for not telling us how many people really viewed this video.
UPDATE: 11:36 PM MST: YouTube has removed the video entirely. It violates their “Terms of Service.” Way to go, cowards. Someone will re-upload it soon, I’m sure.
UPDATE: 11:56 PM MST: The only YouTube TOS clause that is pertinent whatsoever is their “Shocking and Disturbing” clause:
The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes people do get hurt and it’s inevitable that these events may be documented on YouTube. However, it’s not okay to post violent or gory content that’s primarily intended to be shocking, sensational or disrespectful. If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional context and information. For instance, including a clip from a slaughter house in a video on factory farming may be appropriate. However, stringing together unrelated and gruesome clips of animals being slaughtered in a video may be considered gratuitous if its purpose is to shock rather than illustrate.
Our view is that, upon our examination of the footage, there was appropriate balance with ‘additional context’ and ‘information’ given that the clip was three and a half minutes long, and only the final 30 seconds of it became “Shocking” or “Disturbing”.
But, then again, we are all supposed to be little babies that can’t handle the reality of life on planet Earth, so: Thank you most benevolent YouTube for protecting us from learning how fearful you are of the cowards you work for.
UPDATE: Jul 2, 3:10 PM: An alternative link for the video was found.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html
http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2012/05/citizens-can-record-on-duty-police-officers-7th-cir.html
Youtube stops the view count at 301 until they can authenticate there is no fuckery going on. I have noticed this with many vids that go viral. By tomorrow there will be an accurate accounting of the views.
Interesting. I’ll check back tomorrow for a recount! Thanks for the tip!
They are not cowards … once a video hits the 300 mark it shows up as 300+ and is uber delayed on real counts … this happens to EVERY video on youtube especially when they go viral soon after being uploaded … Look into that subject and you will find out that last bit of your article is off base.
Thanks for the tip. What are your thoughts on the rest of the article?
It makes me want to puke blood … I posted this on the Indianapolis Cop Block page and have shared that bastards personal contact info all over the place too … Thanks for getting this put together and out there so quickly and professionally.
All of you who were defending YouTube. What do you think about the video being removed due to a ‘terms of service’ violation?
Still want to defend Google?
Complete and utter bullshit move by them but I bet you had the entire country of police reporting that video too … and to clarify … i didnt defend youtube … i was pointing out how it functions for new videos…
I understand you were not defending YouTube. It’s just a sad story all around. The video was removed by YouTube, but it will be reposted elsewhere in due time.
I am definitely curious to know what “Term of Service” it violated.
Mikester: The article is updated with that information. Enjoy (or cry, either way)
So where are the animal rights activists on all of these police-shoot-dog occurrences? They must not care.
WE ALL CARE! Multiple mistakes across the board, the dog should have been belted in, the ass of an owner should have been on his way, AND the police did NOT have to arrest the guy for a loud radio, really???? THEY WERE WRONG, and hence out of a cowardly bull, shot a dog and let it thrash to death, what comes around goes around.
[…] mass of people hoping for solutions on this issue. You have seen it in previous articles like this and […]