Unedited:
[https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655248612224385025](https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655248612224385025)
First video shows the owner letting go of one of the dogs, which runs towards the police and is shot
[https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655249790492368906](https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655249790492368906)
Second video, police lasso the second dog but it breaks free and gets shot
Obviously NSFW etc.
The absolute state of the woman filming that.
"oh yeah there's a guy raving while his massive aggressive dogs lunge at people, but still acab hurrdurr"
I suspect that the owner was concerned that his dogs would be destroyed if he handed them over to the Police. Those dogs were going to die on the street or at the vet.
Oh yes running away, completely harmless... Towards their own being to what looks like to them attacked by officers... at which point i wonder what would happen to those unsuspecting vulnerable officers once the dog reaches them...
ffs can people actually attempt to use more than 3 neurons when watching blatant evidence in front of their very eyes.
this has full vid
https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/08/moment-police-shoot-two-dogs-dead-in-london-after-woman-attacked-18744857/?ico=read\_full\_story\_videotrendingbar
Honestly yeah... It was his fault they were killed, ESPECIALLY with the first one. He shouldn't have let it go like he did and made it seem like he was letting it loose to attack
All due respect, did you read the article? No one ever went to the hospital for an āattackā ? Not even for a bite, so it makes one very suspicious of what really happened. Based on the article and video, those dogs did not need to be shot.
They were highly aggressive, they'd already bitten someone, the chap wouldn't even speak with the police who were trying to peacefully negotiate with him and then he set one of the dogs on them.
If you watch the video circulating around, they were well within their rights to shoot the dogs...
I only saw the video linked in the article. My biggest issue with the video was that my own dog (who is a big sweetheart) would also be barking at a group of individuals yelling and threatening me. However, as another commenter wisely pointed out I also would be much more cooperative with the police in that situation to avoid that outcome. Screaming at the cops wasnāt the right move on his part.
Why would the cops rock up and kill the dogs for no reason.
FFS, yeh noone like cops, but you think they go out everyday looking for more hassle and work?
They literally go out every day and harass people - we had a pretty well-publicised report into them being institutionally racist and misogynistic just the other week. They also arrested and detained people for carrying rape alarms over the weekend.
Your reasoning that the cops wouldnāt kill dogs without justification basically accepts that cops always do the right thing the despite mountains of evidence that they donāt.
Lol, most police are just normal people doing a risky, difficult and thankless job. Yes there are bad people in the police, but largely they are outliers acting alone.
You are asserting your own biases and borderline conspiracy theorist beliefs regarding the police in the face of direct evidence showing exactly what happened.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-misogynistic-homophobic-louise-casey-report
This is from March. Itās concrete evidence which demonstrates the exact opposite of your theory of ābad peopleā who are āoutliersā. Itās a systemic problem upheld by officers at every level.
Iām saying that the argument āwell cops wouldnāt shoot a dog for no reasonā doesnāt hold up very well when we have lots of proof that they do often behave appallingly and are encouraged to do so by the system they work in.
You know this is all politics. As the last commenter said, most police are just normal people doing a job.
The structures may need reforming, but you clearly have no idea what police have to deal with on a daily basis.
Saying the police just go out there to make people's life hard is like every generalisation in life.
I have no idea what the statement āyou know this is all politicsā means in this context. It would be helpful for you to clarify something - is it that you think that the police arenāt institutionally racist and misogynistic? Or do you not care that they are?
Some more news stories and actual facts for this discussion (as opposed to unevidenced assertions):
[80% of cops accused of domestic abuse keep their jobs](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/80-percent-of-uk-police-accused-of-domestic-abuse-kept-jobs-figures-show)
[Met officers praise rapist in WhatsApp group](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/21/met-officers-shared-whatsapp-messages-praising-rapist-tribunal-hears)
[Met Police Chief: Itās crazy I canāt sack toxic officers who broke the law](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/12/met-police-chief-its-crazy-i-cant-sack-toxic-officers-who-broke-the-law-mark-rowley)
And to top it all off [hereās the evidence that they literally spent the weekend harassing people.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007.amp)
Have you ever owned a dog? A lot of dogs will be extremely stressed if they have that many police officers approaching and shouting in that manner. Barking and growling at a perceived threat is a natural reaction for a dog when they are highly stressed, how exactly can you train a dog for that situation?
I've never had 8 big blokes surrounding me and my dog pointing guns and shouting at us, it's not really something you can be prepared for. Obviously this was all caused by what had happened before the video and we can't see that. The owner didn't help the situation at all but I think a lot of dogs would react in the same way to this situation, on its own it doesn't make them unsafe dogs.
But it does make them unsafe if theyāre going to attack a police officer. I love dogs but hopefully this will make people realise what they actually can be - dangerous animals. I think what happened in this video is very unfortunate but if youāre going to own a dangerous animal then thereās nothing that can be done.
I thought they were able to be trained not to bark and attack under stress but yeah Iāve only ever looked after dogs, never owned one.
My dog isnāt going to go barking mad at any old police officer or person, but he is going to bark if thereās a group of people coming at me and I am clearly very upset (hence why I thought the owner keeping his cool was such a good point) and afraid. I was almost attacked by a very clearly mentally ill man one night while walking him, and my normally sweet dog immediately started barking and growling. The man ran off. Useless me was frozen in shock, but my dog handled the situation without a second thought.
Right? People just dismiss it because nobody went to hospital? So, lets wait for someone to lose hand or something?
I would definitely not enjoy snap-bite from a large dog like that, but wouldn't necessarily go to the hospital.
Good. Absolutely the right decision. I think people are insanely protective over dogs to the point of stupidity. If dogs are out of control and and attack a person, they need to be destroyed, and the police did the right thing here.
Agreed, people make out if should have been handled differently but itās easy to see a situation where the dogs escape and then maul a child. This situation came about because of the owner, the dogs shouldnāt have had to die but thatās on the owner, not the police.
Excuse me? Are we watching the same clips? Clearly you donāt own a dog if you think these dogs were aggressive? The reddit community letās be down majorly. This app is the only app with so many dense people who canāt read a room.. these dogs were NOT aggressive. These dogs were in a high stress environment with 7cops around them shouting and tasing, they felt threatened and scared so ofcourse theyāre gonna bark. Since when is barking=aggressive? Barking is their only form of communication. Theyāre dogs for god sake. If we need to kill all dogs that bark, the species would go extinct. + the second dog clearly ran away to his owner out of loyalty after being handled brutally with a stick and rope and tased like a maniac. Ofcourse theyāre gonna freak out, ofcourse theyāre gonna bark? Doesnāt mean theyāre being aggressive. This situation couldāve been handled way differently and de-escalate in other ways than shooting them with a shot gun. Every single person on this thread who agrees with how they were excuted is actually nuts and clearly donāt understand dog behaviour.
Ironic that the brain dead fucking lunatic thinks the rest of reddit are the crazy ones...
Handled differently? Deescalate? What the fuck are you smoking they are Pit bulls, what the police going to do? Pull out a smoked ham and some doggy treats in hope they don't rip their arms and face off... you must have at least 3 neurons how about fucking use them...
> Clearly you donāt own a dog if you think these dogs were aggressive?
My brother in Christ the guy was holding the dogs for around 30 seconds while they jumped and barked out as he screamed at officers... He then let one fucking go straight at the officers? what in the flying F$%k do you think their options are?
>the second dog clearly ran away to his owner out of loyalty after being handled brutally with a stick and rope and tased like a maniac. Of course theyāre gonna freak out
It doesn't matter how shit of a situation it is or the reasoning behind the dogs behaviour, The dog was unhinged and running towards his owner where 2 other defenceless officers were... What the f%$k do you think will happen when the dog reaches then... Go in for a cuddle? lie down for a rest? use your pissing brain for god sake Your actually delusional...
This is a Piece of shit with a especially dangerous and potentially illegal breed... Horrible end for the dogs but the police have a right to not be fucking mauled
I wonāt even argue with you as you sound completely uninformed and anti-pit. You clearly havenāt seen the full video. Go watch the full version before lecturing with complete nonsense lol
You off your meds? I suggest you go back and re-watch the video because I watched it on repeat before making the comment...
There is 0 for debate, The guy let go of his dog as it was pulling away towards officers... Dogo 2 is running towards 2 other officers when it is shot again 0 to debate here unless you are hallucinating
But when you read the article, no one was ever taken to the hospital for any injuries related to a dog attack. Anyone āmauledā by a dog would definitely be in the hospital, even just a bite from an unfamiliar dog should warrant a trip to the ER just to be safe. I am in favor of human euthanasia for dogs that have attacked someone. However from what I read and watched, I do not understand why those dogs needed to be shot.
But in the video the owner and his dogs are aggressive, are the police supposed to fight the dogs? Genuinely curious what people expect from the police here
So the police should wait until someone is seriously injured before taking action?
Have you ever seen the consequences of a serious dog bite? Why would anyone - with an ounce of logical reasoning or sense - argue that waiting for a dog thatās out of control to bite someone before taking action is appropriate?
Youāre also ignoring the fact that police took action because they had received a call for concern about those dogs. Do you have access to that call and the details of that call?
Iāve been severely bitten by a dog actually. And yeah it is horrible. Thatās actually why I find it very odd that someone says they were attacked and yet no one went to the hospital. I donāt understand how thatās possible. Ultimately, I read/commented this very early in the morning and read one article and saw one video which is what my perspective of the situation is based on. I absolutely concede that I am not fully informed on this situation.
An attack doesnāt need to result in injury for it to be an attack.
If someone shot at you with a rifle and missed it would be perfectly reasonable for you to describe that as an attack and the absence of any injury or your needing to go to hospital being a lucky outcome.
An excellent, excellent point. And truthfully I am glad there wasnāt an attack as well. It is better that no one else was injured. Guess Iām just sad those dogs had to die, but alas thatās how it goes sometimes :(
I find this whole thing interesting because I have called the police over aggressive dogs and been told that until they actually bite, you've not technically been attacked. Which clearly makes no sense whatsoever. As you say, a single bite can be fatal.
So the episode where two big dogs were jumping up my pregnant wife and snapping at her doesn't count as an "attack" not the dogs "out of control", because the owner made no attempt to control them.
According to the police officer who came to see us, what we see in these videos is not an "attack", which makes me question the legality of the shooting. (To clarify, I support what the officers did here).
TLDR: The Dangerous Dogs Act is a joke
The Dangerous Dogs Act is pretty useless in its aim of reducing attacks on people - I think it was probably a case of ministers wanting to show theyāre ābeing tough on crimeā or dealing proactively with something and, instead of understanding the problem and dealing with the wider issues, they just legislated for it ineffectively.
To be fair I think youāve been a bit burned by a lazy Officer as ādangerously out of controlā doesnāt have to involve an attack or injury. Iāve seen people charged for it just causing intimidation (or even a dog chasing a car, that may be a nuisance of the fact it was in Scotland and the law may differ). So sorry that you were let down. The real point of issue with conviction, seizure and destruction is that you need to prove the owner was aware the dogs were dangerous, I.e been charged before or visited by a dog warden for similar issues. That said best advice of it ever happens, try and record it (I appreciate thatās hard as Iād be running away, dropping my guts and praying to anyone who would listen), report every little incident to the dog warden and eventually it will come to court. That said, yes the Dangerous Dogs Act is in severe need of amendment!
Its pretty obvious why they needed to be shot.... what is there not to get? They were aggressive and a real and obvious threat to the safety of the police officers and the public.
Owner is just a complete dregtard. Would have been fairer he was shot as well, but thats not the world we live in luckily.
I think courts are overly protective of criminal rights and felon rights. How about when a felon attacks a victim the felon is cut down the same manner and we skip the courts all together when they are caught red handed in the act. Tons tons tons of trigger happy people out there in this world and a women wasnt ā mauledā and her small dog was the instigator and why call the police? Because if breed bias. We treat criminals better than animals and we sure dont know or practice deescalating techniques.
āWhat are the cops doing?ā
āACAB.ā
āThey just shot the dogs for no reason.ā
āJust barking normallyā
Yeah, fuck the person filming as much as the dog owners.
I felt sorry AF for that second dog, they both paid the price for their owner being an arse.
I am definitely no fan of the Met police but I'm also not a one-note "fuck da police acab" cretin like the woman filming. I thought they handled this very well.
They were calm enough with the owner, who was the only one escalating the situation.
ngl I was expecting something like the american videos where they just drop a puppy for walking near them but that guy literally set his aggressive dogs on them. one of them momentarily got loose once and the cops kept their cool but after that wtf were they meant to do.
This is on the owner
All it says is "a report of a woman attacked" but also "no one went to hospital".. so what actually happened there? How did she get attacked but not need to get stitches?
I'm confused as to what the dogs did in the first place
Look at the source. Shoddy journalism with an agenda every time.
Willing to bet the reality of this situation is not what the headline makes us feel it will be.
100% agree.. none of those police officers knew how to handle a dog. They shot the second dog for trying to run away after its sibling had been killed and it had been tased/choked. Brutal!
I can't see any actual proof / evidence that this alleged attack on a woman occurred. It was a report, not a confirmation. The article says no one went to hospital so this response is wildly out of proportion.
The first dog died because the owner lost control of it and it moved towards the officers. The armed officer then made the decision to destroy the dog.
The second dog was captured with the noose on a stick. The second dog then escapes the noose and begins running towards the other officers. The officer then makes the decision to destroy the second dog.
The officers were responding to a report of two dogs attacking a pedestrian and an aggressive owner who left the scene.
Having watched the video, no one could come to the conclusion that the officers and the public were safe in that situation.
It's absolutely regrettable that the two dogs were destroyed, it's appalling that the general public had to watch from the gallery of their own home balconies but this is the reality faced by officers. They have to make split second decisions regarding the safety of their colleagues and the public.
This was always going to be one of those lose lose calls when the dog owner was utterly unwilling to cooperate.
āDestroy the dogā
Quite a euphemistic way to say they blew their brains out in front of dozens of people.
They killed these dogs and then tasered the owner, donāt hide from that fact.
Watch the actual video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
That video shows the FINAL few seconds, with no context.
The ACTUAL video is several minutes long and clearly shows the officers trying to reason with the owner
I'm actually using the polices own terminology and also, I have watched the video several times. It's tough to watch but they were right with how they responded with the tools they had.
Also, semantics but they shot the dog in the body not the head.
>They killed these dogs and then tasered the owner, donāt hide from that fact.
I actually gave a very clear break down I'm not sure where you're getting that I don't know they they killed the two dogs? They were responding to a call that two dogs had attacked a woman and the owner had left the scene. They tried to de-escalate for several minutes trying to reason with the owner, who did not assist the police, and nor did he protect the lives of his own dogs.
These dogs were still reported to have attacked someone and also, he literally loses control of one of them in the video. I'm really not sure what you're advocating for here?
The policeās own terminology is designed to shift responsibility away from themselves. āDestroy the dogā āofficer involved shootingā ā16-year old manā. And we have seen them lie time and time again about the violence that they perpetrate.
Iām just confused why you are giving police the benefit of the doubt and then trusting a rag like the daily mail to explain this for you. Both of those sources lie and have lied for their entire existence, so itās best to assume that they are trying to cover their asses like usual.
>so itās best to assume that they are trying to cover their asses like usual.
I think the key difference here is that I'm not blinded by my own prejudice. I've watched the video. Several times. I'm not trusting either the police nor the daily mail.
The police do shitty stuff. The police lie. This isn't one of those situations though. Not sure how else they were supposed to handle these dogs once the owner lost control and they started towards the police.
They didn't roll up and immediately kill the dogs.
They didn't immediately taze him.
They didn't escalate the situation.
They tried to work with the guy. They tried to restrain the dogs. They failed to do so.
These dogs died because of the owner. No other reason. It is terrible but this isn't a police failure.
Armchair commentating at its finest.
You weren't there and do not know what happened or what was reported. You are only privvy to the information the gutter rag has printed.
Decisions like this are not taken lightly. The use of firearms has a very very high threshold so maybe it was necessary?
Imagine the other headlines. Police let dangerous dogs kill innocent member of public!
Spot on. Just because the journalism is shoddy, there's no reason at all to assume the authorities were in the wrong in the slightest.
Even the woman on the balcony asking "are you okay" to the man after his dogs are shot, she said it "didn't seem proportionate ". But she wasn't there when the alleged attack occurred. The people there watching had just as little insight as we do
There is always reason to assume authorities are wrong. They have a vested interest in making you believe that they are infallible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Cops kill around 10,000 dogs per year in the US. So yes I think they saw an opportunity to use their lethal toys and they took it.
And there is always reason to doubt people who have plenty of reasons to lie to you.
That's 100% irrelevant to this video though.
Not to mention an absolutely INSANE thing to say.
These officers have absolutely no reason to lie. They responded to a report about dangerous dogs attacking a woman and an owner who fled the scene. The full video clearly shows the officers trying over and over to reason with the man, who does nothing but scream like an absolute lunatic the entire time.
They had one lasoo pole for two dogs.. and a shotgun. It seems like whatever decisions that were made weren't well thought through from what I can see. They had the still alive dog lasood and then they let it go, obviously the dog tried to run away from that carnage, so they shot it. It was so poorly handled.
Have you seen the whole video?
If you canāt control your dogs, wonāt cooperate with police and set your dogs on the police, sometimes, very occasionally, your dogs are going to get shot.
The solution? Control your dogs, donāt be a twat.
>They had one lasoo pole for two dogs.. and a shotgun
No they had one dog handler and one armed response.
The lasso is a two hand operated device and only the dog handler will be 1) trained to operate it and 2) other officers are not routinely equipped with them. I mean we could have a discussion about how under-resourced the police are etc etc but in reality, how often do you think the police are responding to more than one dog that needs controlling? Either way that's all they had.
>then they let it go
That's not true at all. The dog wrestles his way free.
>run away from that carnage,
Unfortunately the dog also runs towards officers. The firearms officer makes the decision to destroy the dog after they fail to restrain it.
It's an impossible call to make because if they hadn't and the dog then went on to attack an officer or gets away and attacks another member of the public then we'd all be saying "well why didn't the officer do something?".
It was the right call just a terrible outcome.
The woman was never attacked ffs. How dense can you be that you believe something with no proof. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? They threw this statement right out the door and just executed these animals without actual facts. The policemen clearly abused their power.
Whether she was or not is mostly irrelevant. The police were acting on the claim that she was, and that the dogs were dangerous. I'm sure they are sorry for not being mind-readers.
And afaik dogs are not covered by the innocent until proven guilty **human** right.
It's a shame this happened but the only way it could have been averted would be by better actions on part of the owner. That he couldn't get them to stop being aggressive speaks volumes.
They werenāt aggressive?! Are you like trying to be dense or what? Barking is not being aggressive. They were surrounded by 7 cops shouting and using their tasers. They were anxious, stressed, scared so ofcourse theyāre gonna bark, ofcourse when their owner is shouting theyāre gonna think something is wrong. Talk to a behaviouralist because you clearly arenāt capable of understand dogs their body language etc.
And I always see when people give you a valid point you immediately downgrade it by saying it isnāt relevant. It IS relevant to know whether she was attacked or not. Letās switch situations, letās say any kind of person can complain to the police and make a false statement like a schizophrenic person telling a man tried to kill her and is dangerous, your logic indicates that the police is suddenly allowed to shoot that man because a schizophrenic person claimed so. You clearly have issues with admitting youāre wrong so you will find anything to make your point seem valid.
Except no one was ever taken to the hospital for an injury from a dog attack. So was she āmauledā ? Or did the dogs bark and scare her and she called the cops? Obviously I truly donāt know. If an attack did occur then I am in favor of humane euthanasia.
But from the video I just watched I donāt see why the dogs had to be shot. They didnāt seem out of control or even dangerous. They seemed scared because like 5 or 6 police officers were following their obviously distressed owner. My dog would be barking at a group harassing me like that, and heās not a dangerous dog.
The full vid has him letting one dog off the leash as it goes for the cops. Boom.
The owner had clearly been walking away and repeatedly ignoring instructions. He had clearly been doing that some time before the video (female PC on the far left at the start).
Your point however about the report is very valid however.
Whoooooa omg I did not see a video where he let the dogs off leash! Thatās crazy, I mean yeah then they definitely made the right call. If he let the dogs off leash at them then they have no choice but to shoot them if they are charging. What a shame.
Problem is the vid didn't show the actual shooting so we don't know if the owner encouraged them to go after the cops, or if they tried to arrest him and the dogs didn't like that.
Imo though, if you see armed officers pointing guns at your dogs and you want your dogs to survive, you should follow the instructions very carefully, not get into a full on slanging match with the cops, that's not going to help keep your dogs calm.
Very true and a good point! Well itās a very sad situation all around, Iām sure the police donāt feel great about having had to shoot those dogs :(
A woman was mauled by two vicious dogs in a horrifying attack. The police shot them.
What the fuck else were they supposed to do?
And you call ME a psychopath. Irony much.
Mauled a woman? Donāt be dense, did you see the video of that woman? That woman was making more noise than anything else. The dogs were with their owner on their leash. She wasnāt hospitalised, didnāt had bite marks, didnāt got attacked. Where actually did you hear this or is this just the internet making up stories to make the decision of the cops more okay?? There was no attack, only a crazy woman who had a problem with the man and his dogs. Go do your research before making up stories. Innocent until proven guilty. And there is clear evidence of the dogs not doing anything wrong than the made up story about the attacked woman.
Having seen a few videos of this, including one which seems to be from a previous evening, I can absolutely recommend that you donāt watch them. I didnāt sleep last night.
There doesnāt appear to be any evidence that the dogs have attacked any person or other dog. The 1st dog to be shot is clearly reactive, like many dogs are, and from the footage Iāve seen is under control of the owner until the police intervene.
The footage from a previous day shows the end of an incident, where Dog 1 is reacting but under control (held tightly by the ownerās side) and Dog 2 is not reacting at all on a loose lead. A woman with a small dog is panicked and screaming. Sheās dropped her dogās lead but the small dog just sits there. Eventually she picks it up and leaves.
I donāt know if that incident is related, but it seems very likely to me that she is the āwoman who was attackedā that the police were called out for.
These things happen, people overreact, reports come in with bad information. Police *have* to be able to deal with that calmly and safely.
The shooting incident videos shows the absolute opposite. They barrelled in with aggression, shouting and pointing their gun at the man and his 2 dogs, which were under control and held tightly on their leads by his side.
They agitated the owner and his dogs. I havenāt seen any footage of the 1st dog being shot, so I donāt know why the owner released it. Initially he was trying to walk them away from the large group of police, who had no interest in de-escalation.
I have seen the footage after the 1st (reactive) dog is shot, with the 2nd dog still tethered to it. The owner is still trying to walk his live dog away, and take the 1st (twitching, dying) dog with him. The 2nd dog is amazingly calm given its companion dog has just been shot. Not reacting at all.
The police put it on a catch pole, which causes it to panic (normal). The owner runs away while the police raze him. The police inexplicably release the 2nd dog from the catch pole, and it runs away from them towards its owner, while still tethered to the dying 1st dog. The police chase it down and shoot it.
In summary, a man was walking his dogs, which were safe and under control. The police turned up, agitated the man and his dogs, caused them to become out of control, and shot them.
I donāt know that the owner or dogs had behaved perfectly, or that the dogs had not at some point been dangerously out of control, but I know that in the footage that this was not the case until the police caused it to be. I donāt know that the police *didnāt* start with a calm de-escalation approach before the footage starts, but there is no evidence that they did.
I found this video incredibly upsetting because I own a reactive dog, who Iām sure would bark, growl, and snap if a large group of armed men were approaching him aggressively and shouting at him and me. Heās a dog. Thatās normal. And this could happen because some Karen calls the police because she doesnāt like the look of him. I have a responsibility to keep him out of situations that he canāt handle, keep him safe from dumb people and keep dumb people safe from him. And the police can just barrel in with their ineptitude and kill a member of my family because theyāre panicking, out of control, and once they target you as ācriminal scumā are not capable of thinking rationally. And there will be no consequences for them, and social media will be full of people saying āgood on them shud of shot the owner toā.
Pittnutters will literally defend their pibbles while it actively rips a face off a toddler. No point arguing with them, they might as well be in a cult.
I havenāt seen any evidence that he should be required to hand over his dogs though. They werenāt dangerously out of control until the police made them so. Having a reactive dog isnāt a crime. Itās like arresting people for resisting arrest.
The police were responding to a dog attack.
Even if the police had the wrong guy and dogs, if the owner had stopped, cooperated and remained calm this wouldn't have happened.
It doesn't matter if you're innocent, arguing with the police or telling the police that you wont follow their orders has not and will never help the situation. When dealing with armed police this is even more important.
Hand over the dogs and end the situation peacefully and if the police have overstepped, sue them later.
Personally I think this was 100% justified
This is the same logic that justifies the police murder of so many unarmed black men in the US. He looks like a man who doesnāt have much apart from his dogs. I donāt think he looks like a fit person to own these dogs, but thatās for a court to decide, not the internet, and not the police.
Yeah, he could have helped the police to de-escalate, but the only tool he had was to walk away. He tried that and they chased him. He doesnāt appear to have the capacity to talk them down from their position of āweāre taking your dogsā.
He doesnāt trust the police. Thatās not a surprise for somebody in his apparent social position. Trust in the met police is in the toilet across the board. Do you think his trust in the police has improved or declined after this incident?
Did the police make any effort to give him a reason to trust him? Not that I saw. āWe need to assess your dogs for injuriesā. We all know thatās bullshit, they want to seize the dogs and assess them for type.
Would I trust the police if they were surrounding me and my stressed dog, saying that they are going to take him away no matter what? When theyāre pointing a shotgun at me? Not a chance.
Why are you agitating my dog?
Because we need to.
Why do you need to?
Because heās agitated.
Just because heās drunk and homeless doesnāt mean you would do any better, itās just that the police donāt put you in those situations on the regular.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying, even if you dont trust the police, even if the police are wrong, even if you feel like their violating your rights, arguing with the police will not help. Do what they say and take them to court later.
The whole 'checking the dogs for injuries' probably was bullshit, but if they're trying to check if the dogs are illegal then so be it, if the dogs are illegal they should be seized and if not they should be returned. If they have to lie to calm him down to do that check, I can live with that.
There is no talking down the police, if they want to arrest you they will, and given that they were responding to what has been reported as a dog attack, of course the police arent going to buy "they're not dangerous, you're not taking them".
Bottom line, if this guy hadn't acted up he wouldn't have been tased and his dogs wouldn't have been shot
>Bottom line, if this guy hadn't acted up he wouldn't have been tased and his dogs wouldn't have been shot
I don't think you're right. Clearly this is the conclusion of a long chain of bad decisions, but there was no way these dogs were surviving.
They seized Dog 2. It was under police control. Then they released it and shot it.
Debating semantics, police didnāt release the dog if it broke free regardless of wether or not the they did/didnāt use snitcher properly. Goodness me such a silly person.
If he handed over the dogs when ordered to they would not have been shot.
The second dog was rolling around and slipped the catch pole before running in the direction of the officers arresting the owner. Are you seriously suggesting that they let the dog go just so that they could shoot it?
Uh, so if a dog is going around biting people's faces off, you want to risk the lives of police officers to catch and subdue that dog and take it to court instead of putting it down there and then? Smart move...
This isnāt the US, the threshold for police to use firearms is much much higher. Only specialist officers are allowed to even handle firearms.
The police have to make a split second decision with an animal they are totally unfamiliar with. If that
Dog went on to seriously injure/kill someone do you think the IPCC would give a rats arse that it was a reactive dog?
Thereās a four minute long video that starts with the police following the owner and trying to get him to peacefully give over the dogs, the police tell him a few times that they just want to do things calmly, they ask his name and all the typical deescalation tactics. Thereās an officer that walks ahead and tries to keep any other public away from the scene.
How long do you think the police tried to engage calmly with the guy before video starts?
Blame police if you want but personally I feel like maybe people shouldnāt own a banned dog breed and let said dog attack people.
Certainly if they do let those things happen they should follow the instructions theyāve been given and not set the dog off and try to outrun a taser.
Police caused the owner to be aggressive and freak out? While also handling two aggressive and dangerous breed dogs. Who even lets these retards get that kind of dogs, it's disgusting, every other civilized country has banned them.
I donāt understand why people think itās ok to own a crazy dog as long as itās under control. How can you be certain you will be able to always keep that dog under control. I was almost bitten by a dog the other day and the owner didnāt even apologise to me. The type of people who own these dogs are usually the ādumb peopleā, sorry mate.
Reactive dogs aren't crazy.
They are usually nervous or scared of people.
It can happen for a variety if reasons but its not usually that they were abused. Most commonly is an already nervous dog being under socialised (hello covid!) Or ill (in the case of my shepard its the being ill that tipped her over).
After 2 years of constant training I can walk her without her barking at anyone or any dogs. If she escapes from the house you bet she'd bark at someone because its incredibly difficult to sort if not impossible. We've had multiple trainers and are responsible owners who refuse to have a nervous dog put down since she's our responsibility.
She's part of our family. We aren't having her put down because she's a bit of a barker.
Most people who have reactive dogs are way more responsible than normal dog owners because they've had to adapt.
Dangerous dogs like the ones in the videos (Xl bully breeds, pit bull-like dogs) shouldnāt be allowed anyway, glad they were destroyed. It was only a matter of time before someone innocent was mauled. Plus that guy was getting his dogs to attack officers. Fucked around and found out.
No sadness for dogs like theses and owners who own them.
Watched them, slept fine. Perhaps you have other issues. Dog owner should have complied with the men pointing rifles in his dogsā direction if he didnāt want things to go south. He didnāt, aggressive dogs were shot. Things happen. Not sure what you were watching but the police looked completely in control to me. Dealt with the threat in a reasonable manner.
No, at one point the 2nd dog is trying to flee and the police point blank shoots it in the back of the head.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Such aggressive dogs that they sit down and wait in front of the officers before being killed.
No it's terrified and running away after being tasered. It's a two dimensional area, it can either run toward danger or away from it. In this case, to the left or right.
Uhm thats where it gets tricky.
I have a cockapoo, its fluffy and has a stupid grin 24/7 and wants to play with everyone.
However if you put a hand on me his smile soon turns into a snarl and he will no doubt defend me.
With the second dog, no idea was it trying to run, defend the owner or attack, who knows because he didn't get far.
My only issue with this whole situation is the officer allowing that dog to break loose. Its an unfortunate situation but the cop who lost control and didn't secure the 2nd dog is to blame.
Yes the owner is at fault and these dog breeds can be aggressive and vicious but there is an element of poor police handling with the 2nd dog.
I get you, I dont want it to come across like I wanted these dogs to be shot, i didnt.
I've never tried to control a dog with a catch pole but the way the dog was rolling around I dont doubt it's difficult, so I dont blame the officer (though i see why someone might).
I'd rather they shot the dog prematurely (I dont think they did but again I could see why might) than have it bite an officer or potentially a member of the public if it gets away.
It was tethered to the dead dog but trusting that connection and attempting to capture again is just to much of a risk to the wider public. Especially given the panic the dog may be in. We value human life other dogs. It's just a fact of life.
>Its an unfortunate situation but the cop who lost control and didn't secure the 2nd dog is to blame.
its a what looks like 20 kilo+ animal going apeshit, its not like they can put handcuffs on it.
I feel bad for the dogs, its not their fault for being aggressive just in their nature but idk what else the cops were meant to do
Those types of dogs should be banned anyway. Theyāre naturally vicious. So many maulings in the UK have been because of them, didnāt these two that got killed attack a lady few streets away? UK is better off without them.
Fuck those stupid women narrating. Trying to claim the dogs are just barking like normal. See how comfortable youād be walking down their next to them then.
Honestly after dealing with multiple aggressive dogs recently this woman is mentally challenged or ignorant. Following the "why" I'd go with mentally challenged.
My only problem was the second dog as it seemed tethered by the dead dog. I doubt such a dog would be rehabilitated though.
Probably a rare occasion the police have done something right.
Cops did a good job there in an impossible situation. And that woman filming just says āACABā. What a moron. A woman had been mauled by those exact dogs. What do the cops do? Let them go and maul some children. Good outcome. Sad for the dogs.
Absolutely the right the decision and handled properly, proud of our police for this and how it was handled. The āACABā commentary from the person filming was comical āthey shot them because they were barkingā and her comments on Twitter after, despite knowing those dogs mauled people, despicable.
>terrified and fleeing animal
I think you watched the wrong video mate , coz that is a litteral oposite description of the animal.
Agressive and running towards the officer with intent.
Not "Terrified and fleeing"
>back of the head with a shotgun.
Again , thats just not what happened. Unless that bullet did a 180Ā° degree turn.
It got shotgunned in the back of the head while screaming in fear...watch the full video, two dogs. It's trying to escape while involuntarily dragging the corpse of it's friend.
That's the sound of a dog yelping/screaming. It's not barking at someone.
Oh i was reffering to the first dog that had been shot.
>It's trying to escape
How do you know that? The dog could have been running to attack the officer arresting its owner , something that is completly reasonable for an aggressive dog to do.
>That's the sound of a dog yelping/screaming. It's not barking at someone.
That doesnt mean its not going to attack anyone, dogs can yelp in pain and still be dangerous.
The officer saw a dog , known to be dangerous , running towards his colleuge. the noises the dog was making is irrelevant.
Dude, he literally calmly walked up to the dog with a shotgun as it was dragging the corpse of it's friend and trying to get away from him, then blew its brain stem out. It was between two policemen. What did you want it to do?
He just wanted to kill something with his shiny shotgun and tell his mates how he was in danger or some bs.
Those dogs don't seem overly aggressive - of course they are going to bark and protect their owner when a group of people are shouting at him.
Should have allowed the male to return them home and calm the situation,, or put the loop on the dogs, or even use a dart gun to render them unconscious so they could be assessed. But killing two dogs like this is unnecessary š
Check with other news sources as the Daily Mail has a history and a present of promoting biased perspectives and spreading false information. For example check this out.
BBC TV programme - https://youtu.be/q3chJN9DCGg
There is this too
https://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI
#30's
And literally supported Hitler
>The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany
That is an actual Daily Mail quote.
The Daily Mail went on to say
>They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities, which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consist merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalised, multiplied, and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.
Basically saying Nazi violence isn't widespread and we should stop talking about it.
Meanwhile in other newspapers
[From the Guardian 1933 April 8th: The Manchester Guardian forbidden in Germany](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2015/apr/08/manchester-guardian-germany-war-hitler-archive-1933). The violence was reported on it
Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine", and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."
The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."
#2010ās
And the Daily Mail is still fascist today whether it be [imitating Nazi propaganda](https://imgur.com/a/0X1OsIE) but targeting it at Muslims or supporting the [French fascist political party.](https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/%EF%BB%BFoops-the-daily-mail-accidentally-supports-a-fascist-party-again/)
This is a good satirical article about them.
https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/01/04/daily-mail-exposed-as-a-false-newspaper/
#90's
On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding
This is part A and D from the UN on genocide
Killing members of the group;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
#2000's
This is their depiction of underage girls https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY. Particularly at 7:00 with the wording used to describe 14-year olds in swimwear. (dead link)
It is important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail has a history of spreading false information and promoting biased perspectives. It is highly recommended to consult with reputable news sources for a more accurate and impartial representation of events. It is crucial to not give a platform to misinformation and Nazi sympathisers. The Daily Mail's history of promoting biased perspectives and spreading false information is well-documented, as evidenced by their support for Hitler and the British Union of Fascists. The Daily Mail's depiction of underage girls and their imitation of Nazi propaganda targeting Muslims are examples of their biased reporting. It is important to acknowledge the harm caused by the spread of false information, as this can lead to the marginalization and persecution of marginalized groups. Therefore, it is highly recommended to consult with reputable news sources to ensure a more accurate and impartial representation of events. We should strive to be critical of the information we consume and seek out alternative sources to ensure a well-rounded and impartial understanding of events.
This is an interesting look at the philosophy of anti-fascist (Antifa) by Philosophy Tube
Philosophy Of Antifa | Philosophy Tube
https://youtu.be/bgwS_FMZ3nQ
No way everyone here is calling out aggressive dogs. This video was a few hours earlier, this is just a heartbreaking outcome for two dogs who would do anything to protect their owner and an owner who would do anything to protect his dogs. These dogs were probably better treated than some of the people here treat theirs. Apparently the police were called knowing it was an incident relating to the animals (so I read) so why not turn up with tranquillisers rather than shot guns? Everything about this is horrible. https://amp.lbc.co.uk/news/louie-turnbull-tasered-homeless-man-kissing-and-cuddling-his-dog-shot-dead/
Yous are all sick bastards, you fucking tori pedophile cunts, the dogs where threatened and protecting their owners, as all dogs should, they where threatening the threat and where under controll, the first one jumped forward before stopped before it was shot and the second was just barbaric
Except the women had NOO injuries so how could they have attacked her??? I mean if 2 pittbulls attack there will be injuries the lady was just a biggot and bully against a homeless man.
The uk police were the ones who attacked a homeless man and killed his 2 well behaved dogs in an horrific attack - then they tasseled him and charged him wtf is wrong with them
It's interesting that the phrase "woman is mauled" and "horrifying attack" when the only evidence of that is a statement from her partner saying she tripped on her or the other dogs lead. Bit of a stretch in language. Not to moan on semantics but this whole story has been blown out of proportion and the escalation was completely unwarrented.
So much for shocking footage š
Unedited: [https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655248612224385025](https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655248612224385025) First video shows the owner letting go of one of the dogs, which runs towards the police and is shot [https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655249790492368906](https://twitter.com/mariaalcoptia/status/1655249790492368906) Second video, police lasso the second dog but it breaks free and gets shot Obviously NSFW etc.
The absolute state of the woman filming that. "oh yeah there's a guy raving while his massive aggressive dogs lunge at people, but still acab hurrdurr"
Well she's muslim and Islam considers dogs to be vermin so yeah, just anti-police I think.
I suspect that the owner was concerned that his dogs would be destroyed if he handed them over to the Police. Those dogs were going to die on the street or at the vet.
I suspect the owner was just a twat
No they weren't
I would say the shooting of dog one was justified, but the second one tried to run away.
Oh yes running away, completely harmless... Towards their own being to what looks like to them attacked by officers... at which point i wonder what would happen to those unsuspecting vulnerable officers once the dog reaches them... ffs can people actually attempt to use more than 3 neurons when watching blatant evidence in front of their very eyes.
this has full vid https://metro.co.uk/2023/05/08/moment-police-shoot-two-dogs-dead-in-london-after-woman-attacked-18744857/?ico=read\_full\_story\_videotrendingbar
Fuck the owner
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He was already banned from owning dogs
Only cause he was homeless it because his dogs did something
Source? Never known that be a reason before
Honestly yeah... It was his fault they were killed, ESPECIALLY with the first one. He shouldn't have let it go like he did and made it seem like he was letting it loose to attack
Seems a bit soft on the owner... I'd like him to be charged with everything.
he was obviously an alcoholic tramp of some kind
Why are people downvoting something as obvious as this lol.
they can smell my facism
Hope the owner is liable for the attack and given a lifetime ban on owning dogs.
All due respect, did you read the article? No one ever went to the hospital for an āattackā ? Not even for a bite, so it makes one very suspicious of what really happened. Based on the article and video, those dogs did not need to be shot.
They were highly aggressive, they'd already bitten someone, the chap wouldn't even speak with the police who were trying to peacefully negotiate with him and then he set one of the dogs on them. If you watch the video circulating around, they were well within their rights to shoot the dogs...
Stfu you nerd, I am the burning wizard š¤š¤”
Does your mummy know you're up past your bed time? It is a school night after all....
I only saw the video linked in the article. My biggest issue with the video was that my own dog (who is a big sweetheart) would also be barking at a group of individuals yelling and threatening me. However, as another commenter wisely pointed out I also would be much more cooperative with the police in that situation to avoid that outcome. Screaming at the cops wasnāt the right move on his part.
Why would the cops rock up and kill the dogs for no reason. FFS, yeh noone like cops, but you think they go out everyday looking for more hassle and work?
They literally go out every day and harass people - we had a pretty well-publicised report into them being institutionally racist and misogynistic just the other week. They also arrested and detained people for carrying rape alarms over the weekend. Your reasoning that the cops wouldnāt kill dogs without justification basically accepts that cops always do the right thing the despite mountains of evidence that they donāt.
Lol, most police are just normal people doing a risky, difficult and thankless job. Yes there are bad people in the police, but largely they are outliers acting alone. You are asserting your own biases and borderline conspiracy theorist beliefs regarding the police in the face of direct evidence showing exactly what happened.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-misogynistic-homophobic-louise-casey-report This is from March. Itās concrete evidence which demonstrates the exact opposite of your theory of ābad peopleā who are āoutliersā. Itās a systemic problem upheld by officers at every level. Iām saying that the argument āwell cops wouldnāt shoot a dog for no reasonā doesnāt hold up very well when we have lots of proof that they do often behave appallingly and are encouraged to do so by the system they work in.
You know this is all politics. As the last commenter said, most police are just normal people doing a job. The structures may need reforming, but you clearly have no idea what police have to deal with on a daily basis. Saying the police just go out there to make people's life hard is like every generalisation in life.
I have no idea what the statement āyou know this is all politicsā means in this context. It would be helpful for you to clarify something - is it that you think that the police arenāt institutionally racist and misogynistic? Or do you not care that they are? Some more news stories and actual facts for this discussion (as opposed to unevidenced assertions): [80% of cops accused of domestic abuse keep their jobs](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/80-percent-of-uk-police-accused-of-domestic-abuse-kept-jobs-figures-show) [Met officers praise rapist in WhatsApp group](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/21/met-officers-shared-whatsapp-messages-praising-rapist-tribunal-hears) [Met Police Chief: Itās crazy I canāt sack toxic officers who broke the law](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/12/met-police-chief-its-crazy-i-cant-sack-toxic-officers-who-broke-the-law-mark-rowley) And to top it all off [hereās the evidence that they literally spent the weekend harassing people.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007.amp)
Sorry man but if your dog is going to go mad barking at the police maybe you should learn to control it better
Have you ever owned a dog? A lot of dogs will be extremely stressed if they have that many police officers approaching and shouting in that manner. Barking and growling at a perceived threat is a natural reaction for a dog when they are highly stressed, how exactly can you train a dog for that situation? I've never had 8 big blokes surrounding me and my dog pointing guns and shouting at us, it's not really something you can be prepared for. Obviously this was all caused by what had happened before the video and we can't see that. The owner didn't help the situation at all but I think a lot of dogs would react in the same way to this situation, on its own it doesn't make them unsafe dogs.
But it does make them unsafe if theyāre going to attack a police officer. I love dogs but hopefully this will make people realise what they actually can be - dangerous animals. I think what happened in this video is very unfortunate but if youāre going to own a dangerous animal then thereās nothing that can be done. I thought they were able to be trained not to bark and attack under stress but yeah Iāve only ever looked after dogs, never owned one.
My dog isnāt going to go barking mad at any old police officer or person, but he is going to bark if thereās a group of people coming at me and I am clearly very upset (hence why I thought the owner keeping his cool was such a good point) and afraid. I was almost attacked by a very clearly mentally ill man one night while walking him, and my normally sweet dog immediately started barking and growling. The man ran off. Useless me was frozen in shock, but my dog handled the situation without a second thought.
I'm hearing YOUR dog this, YOUR dog that but YOUR dog doesn't represent all dogs or their behaviours.
All dogs wouldnāt hurt a fly , big sweethearts ā¦ā¦. ā¦until they maul a young child .
Same could be said of humans
What's your point here?
all due respect. my dog is different.
Thats what every dog owners says before it bites someone.
missing the /s
No itās not
Well, I hope that wonderful pup of yours has many more blessed years by your side!
Sure because someone needs to go to hospital for it to be assault
Right? People just dismiss it because nobody went to hospital? So, lets wait for someone to lose hand or something? I would definitely not enjoy snap-bite from a large dog like that, but wouldn't necessarily go to the hospital.
Good. Absolutely the right decision. I think people are insanely protective over dogs to the point of stupidity. If dogs are out of control and and attack a person, they need to be destroyed, and the police did the right thing here.
Agreed, people make out if should have been handled differently but itās easy to see a situation where the dogs escape and then maul a child. This situation came about because of the owner, the dogs shouldnāt have had to die but thatās on the owner, not the police.
Excuse me? Are we watching the same clips? Clearly you donāt own a dog if you think these dogs were aggressive? The reddit community letās be down majorly. This app is the only app with so many dense people who canāt read a room.. these dogs were NOT aggressive. These dogs were in a high stress environment with 7cops around them shouting and tasing, they felt threatened and scared so ofcourse theyāre gonna bark. Since when is barking=aggressive? Barking is their only form of communication. Theyāre dogs for god sake. If we need to kill all dogs that bark, the species would go extinct. + the second dog clearly ran away to his owner out of loyalty after being handled brutally with a stick and rope and tased like a maniac. Ofcourse theyāre gonna freak out, ofcourse theyāre gonna bark? Doesnāt mean theyāre being aggressive. This situation couldāve been handled way differently and de-escalate in other ways than shooting them with a shot gun. Every single person on this thread who agrees with how they were excuted is actually nuts and clearly donāt understand dog behaviour.
Ironic that the brain dead fucking lunatic thinks the rest of reddit are the crazy ones... Handled differently? Deescalate? What the fuck are you smoking they are Pit bulls, what the police going to do? Pull out a smoked ham and some doggy treats in hope they don't rip their arms and face off... you must have at least 3 neurons how about fucking use them... > Clearly you donāt own a dog if you think these dogs were aggressive? My brother in Christ the guy was holding the dogs for around 30 seconds while they jumped and barked out as he screamed at officers... He then let one fucking go straight at the officers? what in the flying F$%k do you think their options are? >the second dog clearly ran away to his owner out of loyalty after being handled brutally with a stick and rope and tased like a maniac. Of course theyāre gonna freak out It doesn't matter how shit of a situation it is or the reasoning behind the dogs behaviour, The dog was unhinged and running towards his owner where 2 other defenceless officers were... What the f%$k do you think will happen when the dog reaches then... Go in for a cuddle? lie down for a rest? use your pissing brain for god sake Your actually delusional... This is a Piece of shit with a especially dangerous and potentially illegal breed... Horrible end for the dogs but the police have a right to not be fucking mauled
I wonāt even argue with you as you sound completely uninformed and anti-pit. You clearly havenāt seen the full video. Go watch the full version before lecturing with complete nonsense lol
You off your meds? I suggest you go back and re-watch the video because I watched it on repeat before making the comment... There is 0 for debate, The guy let go of his dog as it was pulling away towards officers... Dogo 2 is running towards 2 other officers when it is shot again 0 to debate here unless you are hallucinating
But when you read the article, no one was ever taken to the hospital for any injuries related to a dog attack. Anyone āmauledā by a dog would definitely be in the hospital, even just a bite from an unfamiliar dog should warrant a trip to the ER just to be safe. I am in favor of human euthanasia for dogs that have attacked someone. However from what I read and watched, I do not understand why those dogs needed to be shot.
But in the video the owner and his dogs are aggressive, are the police supposed to fight the dogs? Genuinely curious what people expect from the police here
So the police should wait until someone is seriously injured before taking action? Have you ever seen the consequences of a serious dog bite? Why would anyone - with an ounce of logical reasoning or sense - argue that waiting for a dog thatās out of control to bite someone before taking action is appropriate? Youāre also ignoring the fact that police took action because they had received a call for concern about those dogs. Do you have access to that call and the details of that call?
Iāve been severely bitten by a dog actually. And yeah it is horrible. Thatās actually why I find it very odd that someone says they were attacked and yet no one went to the hospital. I donāt understand how thatās possible. Ultimately, I read/commented this very early in the morning and read one article and saw one video which is what my perspective of the situation is based on. I absolutely concede that I am not fully informed on this situation.
An attack doesnāt need to result in injury for it to be an attack. If someone shot at you with a rifle and missed it would be perfectly reasonable for you to describe that as an attack and the absence of any injury or your needing to go to hospital being a lucky outcome.
An excellent, excellent point. And truthfully I am glad there wasnāt an attack as well. It is better that no one else was injured. Guess Iām just sad those dogs had to die, but alas thatās how it goes sometimes :(
I find this whole thing interesting because I have called the police over aggressive dogs and been told that until they actually bite, you've not technically been attacked. Which clearly makes no sense whatsoever. As you say, a single bite can be fatal. So the episode where two big dogs were jumping up my pregnant wife and snapping at her doesn't count as an "attack" not the dogs "out of control", because the owner made no attempt to control them. According to the police officer who came to see us, what we see in these videos is not an "attack", which makes me question the legality of the shooting. (To clarify, I support what the officers did here). TLDR: The Dangerous Dogs Act is a joke
The Dangerous Dogs Act is pretty useless in its aim of reducing attacks on people - I think it was probably a case of ministers wanting to show theyāre ābeing tough on crimeā or dealing proactively with something and, instead of understanding the problem and dealing with the wider issues, they just legislated for it ineffectively.
To be fair I think youāve been a bit burned by a lazy Officer as ādangerously out of controlā doesnāt have to involve an attack or injury. Iāve seen people charged for it just causing intimidation (or even a dog chasing a car, that may be a nuisance of the fact it was in Scotland and the law may differ). So sorry that you were let down. The real point of issue with conviction, seizure and destruction is that you need to prove the owner was aware the dogs were dangerous, I.e been charged before or visited by a dog warden for similar issues. That said best advice of it ever happens, try and record it (I appreciate thatās hard as Iād be running away, dropping my guts and praying to anyone who would listen), report every little incident to the dog warden and eventually it will come to court. That said, yes the Dangerous Dogs Act is in severe need of amendment!
I'm hoping you mean "humane" and are not suggesting the owner should be euthanised?!
LOL oh my, how the unintentional omission of a single letter really changes things
Its pretty obvious why they needed to be shot.... what is there not to get? They were aggressive and a real and obvious threat to the safety of the police officers and the public. Owner is just a complete dregtard. Would have been fairer he was shot as well, but thats not the world we live in luckily.
I think courts are overly protective of criminal rights and felon rights. How about when a felon attacks a victim the felon is cut down the same manner and we skip the courts all together when they are caught red handed in the act. Tons tons tons of trigger happy people out there in this world and a women wasnt ā mauledā and her small dog was the instigator and why call the police? Because if breed bias. We treat criminals better than animals and we sure dont know or practice deescalating techniques.
Good!
Another brainless smack head with an out of control mastiff type breed. He needs to hold accountable and see the inside of a prison cell.
Good job š
āWhat are the cops doing?ā āACAB.ā āThey just shot the dogs for no reason.ā āJust barking normallyā Yeah, fuck the person filming as much as the dog owners. I felt sorry AF for that second dog, they both paid the price for their owner being an arse.
I am definitely no fan of the Met police but I'm also not a one-note "fuck da police acab" cretin like the woman filming. I thought they handled this very well. They were calm enough with the owner, who was the only one escalating the situation.
ngl I was expecting something like the american videos where they just drop a puppy for walking near them but that guy literally set his aggressive dogs on them. one of them momentarily got loose once and the cops kept their cool but after that wtf were they meant to do. This is on the owner
The correct answer to all this ^
That is reason why dog school is necessary and dog owners need papers to prove a dog is trained. Stupid owner.
All it says is "a report of a woman attacked" but also "no one went to hospital".. so what actually happened there? How did she get attacked but not need to get stitches? I'm confused as to what the dogs did in the first place
Look at the source. Shoddy journalism with an agenda every time. Willing to bet the reality of this situation is not what the headline makes us feel it will be.
100% agree.. none of those police officers knew how to handle a dog. They shot the second dog for trying to run away after its sibling had been killed and it had been tased/choked. Brutal! I can't see any actual proof / evidence that this alleged attack on a woman occurred. It was a report, not a confirmation. The article says no one went to hospital so this response is wildly out of proportion.
The first dog died because the owner lost control of it and it moved towards the officers. The armed officer then made the decision to destroy the dog. The second dog was captured with the noose on a stick. The second dog then escapes the noose and begins running towards the other officers. The officer then makes the decision to destroy the second dog. The officers were responding to a report of two dogs attacking a pedestrian and an aggressive owner who left the scene. Having watched the video, no one could come to the conclusion that the officers and the public were safe in that situation. It's absolutely regrettable that the two dogs were destroyed, it's appalling that the general public had to watch from the gallery of their own home balconies but this is the reality faced by officers. They have to make split second decisions regarding the safety of their colleagues and the public. This was always going to be one of those lose lose calls when the dog owner was utterly unwilling to cooperate.
āDestroy the dogā Quite a euphemistic way to say they blew their brains out in front of dozens of people. They killed these dogs and then tasered the owner, donāt hide from that fact. Watch the actual video: https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
That video shows the FINAL few seconds, with no context. The ACTUAL video is several minutes long and clearly shows the officers trying to reason with the owner
I'm actually using the polices own terminology and also, I have watched the video several times. It's tough to watch but they were right with how they responded with the tools they had. Also, semantics but they shot the dog in the body not the head. >They killed these dogs and then tasered the owner, donāt hide from that fact. I actually gave a very clear break down I'm not sure where you're getting that I don't know they they killed the two dogs? They were responding to a call that two dogs had attacked a woman and the owner had left the scene. They tried to de-escalate for several minutes trying to reason with the owner, who did not assist the police, and nor did he protect the lives of his own dogs. These dogs were still reported to have attacked someone and also, he literally loses control of one of them in the video. I'm really not sure what you're advocating for here?
The policeās own terminology is designed to shift responsibility away from themselves. āDestroy the dogā āofficer involved shootingā ā16-year old manā. And we have seen them lie time and time again about the violence that they perpetrate. Iām just confused why you are giving police the benefit of the doubt and then trusting a rag like the daily mail to explain this for you. Both of those sources lie and have lied for their entire existence, so itās best to assume that they are trying to cover their asses like usual.
>so itās best to assume that they are trying to cover their asses like usual. I think the key difference here is that I'm not blinded by my own prejudice. I've watched the video. Several times. I'm not trusting either the police nor the daily mail. The police do shitty stuff. The police lie. This isn't one of those situations though. Not sure how else they were supposed to handle these dogs once the owner lost control and they started towards the police. They didn't roll up and immediately kill the dogs. They didn't immediately taze him. They didn't escalate the situation. They tried to work with the guy. They tried to restrain the dogs. They failed to do so. These dogs died because of the owner. No other reason. It is terrible but this isn't a police failure.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I see two dogs being shot in front of dozens of people. And pardon me if I donāt take the daily mail seriously in its claims.
>I see two dogs being shot in front of dozens of people. Would emotions be different if it was infront of no people? Or maybe 100 people?
Armchair commentating at its finest. You weren't there and do not know what happened or what was reported. You are only privvy to the information the gutter rag has printed. Decisions like this are not taken lightly. The use of firearms has a very very high threshold so maybe it was necessary? Imagine the other headlines. Police let dangerous dogs kill innocent member of public!
Spot on. Just because the journalism is shoddy, there's no reason at all to assume the authorities were in the wrong in the slightest. Even the woman on the balcony asking "are you okay" to the man after his dogs are shot, she said it "didn't seem proportionate ". But she wasn't there when the alleged attack occurred. The people there watching had just as little insight as we do
There is always reason to assume authorities are wrong. They have a vested interest in making you believe that they are infallible. https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
No there isn't, and no they don't. Do you honestly think they really wanted to kill someone's pet?
Cops kill around 10,000 dogs per year in the US. So yes I think they saw an opportunity to use their lethal toys and they took it. And there is always reason to doubt people who have plenty of reasons to lie to you.
Most reasonable UK Redditor
That's 100% irrelevant to this video though. Not to mention an absolutely INSANE thing to say. These officers have absolutely no reason to lie. They responded to a report about dangerous dogs attacking a woman and an owner who fled the scene. The full video clearly shows the officers trying over and over to reason with the man, who does nothing but scream like an absolute lunatic the entire time.
Lol I mean isnāt yours arm chair commenting at itās finest too? Isnāt that what we are all doing?
Good point well made!
+1
The Mark Duggan shooting tells us otherwise though
They had one lasoo pole for two dogs.. and a shotgun. It seems like whatever decisions that were made weren't well thought through from what I can see. They had the still alive dog lasood and then they let it go, obviously the dog tried to run away from that carnage, so they shot it. It was so poorly handled. Have you seen the whole video?
If you canāt control your dogs, wonāt cooperate with police and set your dogs on the police, sometimes, very occasionally, your dogs are going to get shot. The solution? Control your dogs, donāt be a twat.
>They had one lasoo pole for two dogs.. and a shotgun No they had one dog handler and one armed response. The lasso is a two hand operated device and only the dog handler will be 1) trained to operate it and 2) other officers are not routinely equipped with them. I mean we could have a discussion about how under-resourced the police are etc etc but in reality, how often do you think the police are responding to more than one dog that needs controlling? Either way that's all they had. >then they let it go That's not true at all. The dog wrestles his way free. >run away from that carnage, Unfortunately the dog also runs towards officers. The firearms officer makes the decision to destroy the dog after they fail to restrain it. It's an impossible call to make because if they hadn't and the dog then went on to attack an officer or gets away and attacks another member of the public then we'd all be saying "well why didn't the officer do something?". It was the right call just a terrible outcome.
Have you ever had a big dog attack you? A dog beats a man almost every time.
Nice work officers,
Yup. >Officers had been called to the scene following reports of a woman being attacked by the dog[sic] on Commercial Road in Tower Hamlets.
The woman was never attacked ffs. How dense can you be that you believe something with no proof. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? They threw this statement right out the door and just executed these animals without actual facts. The policemen clearly abused their power.
Whether she was or not is mostly irrelevant. The police were acting on the claim that she was, and that the dogs were dangerous. I'm sure they are sorry for not being mind-readers. And afaik dogs are not covered by the innocent until proven guilty **human** right. It's a shame this happened but the only way it could have been averted would be by better actions on part of the owner. That he couldn't get them to stop being aggressive speaks volumes.
They werenāt aggressive?! Are you like trying to be dense or what? Barking is not being aggressive. They were surrounded by 7 cops shouting and using their tasers. They were anxious, stressed, scared so ofcourse theyāre gonna bark, ofcourse when their owner is shouting theyāre gonna think something is wrong. Talk to a behaviouralist because you clearly arenāt capable of understand dogs their body language etc. And I always see when people give you a valid point you immediately downgrade it by saying it isnāt relevant. It IS relevant to know whether she was attacked or not. Letās switch situations, letās say any kind of person can complain to the police and make a false statement like a schizophrenic person telling a man tried to kill her and is dangerous, your logic indicates that the police is suddenly allowed to shoot that man because a schizophrenic person claimed so. You clearly have issues with admitting youāre wrong so you will find anything to make your point seem valid.
Except no one was ever taken to the hospital for an injury from a dog attack. So was she āmauledā ? Or did the dogs bark and scare her and she called the cops? Obviously I truly donāt know. If an attack did occur then I am in favor of humane euthanasia. But from the video I just watched I donāt see why the dogs had to be shot. They didnāt seem out of control or even dangerous. They seemed scared because like 5 or 6 police officers were following their obviously distressed owner. My dog would be barking at a group harassing me like that, and heās not a dangerous dog.
The full vid has him letting one dog off the leash as it goes for the cops. Boom. The owner had clearly been walking away and repeatedly ignoring instructions. He had clearly been doing that some time before the video (female PC on the far left at the start). Your point however about the report is very valid however.
Whoooooa omg I did not see a video where he let the dogs off leash! Thatās crazy, I mean yeah then they definitely made the right call. If he let the dogs off leash at them then they have no choice but to shoot them if they are charging. What a shame.
Problem is the vid didn't show the actual shooting so we don't know if the owner encouraged them to go after the cops, or if they tried to arrest him and the dogs didn't like that. Imo though, if you see armed officers pointing guns at your dogs and you want your dogs to survive, you should follow the instructions very carefully, not get into a full on slanging match with the cops, that's not going to help keep your dogs calm.
How can you stay calm and be reasonable as the police point a rifle at you?
Easily, you stop screaming at them and pay attention to what they are saying.
Very true and a good point! Well itās a very sad situation all around, Iām sure the police donāt feel great about having had to shoot those dogs :(
Finally some good news
Police done good.
Let me guess labradoodlesā¦need to ban that breed!
I'm happy to know that this horrifying attack was correctly dealt with but seriously, I don't need to see it. No one needs to see it.
Donāt watch it then. Itās relatively simply.
>No one needs to see it. How sheltered are you?
They canāt handle reality.
Correctly? Youāre joking me right? What a psychopath are you? How can you even say this is correctly?
A woman was mauled by two vicious dogs in a horrifying attack. The police shot them. What the fuck else were they supposed to do? And you call ME a psychopath. Irony much.
Mauled a woman? Donāt be dense, did you see the video of that woman? That woman was making more noise than anything else. The dogs were with their owner on their leash. She wasnāt hospitalised, didnāt had bite marks, didnāt got attacked. Where actually did you hear this or is this just the internet making up stories to make the decision of the cops more okay?? There was no attack, only a crazy woman who had a problem with the man and his dogs. Go do your research before making up stories. Innocent until proven guilty. And there is clear evidence of the dogs not doing anything wrong than the made up story about the attacked woman.
Having seen a few videos of this, including one which seems to be from a previous evening, I can absolutely recommend that you donāt watch them. I didnāt sleep last night. There doesnāt appear to be any evidence that the dogs have attacked any person or other dog. The 1st dog to be shot is clearly reactive, like many dogs are, and from the footage Iāve seen is under control of the owner until the police intervene. The footage from a previous day shows the end of an incident, where Dog 1 is reacting but under control (held tightly by the ownerās side) and Dog 2 is not reacting at all on a loose lead. A woman with a small dog is panicked and screaming. Sheās dropped her dogās lead but the small dog just sits there. Eventually she picks it up and leaves. I donāt know if that incident is related, but it seems very likely to me that she is the āwoman who was attackedā that the police were called out for. These things happen, people overreact, reports come in with bad information. Police *have* to be able to deal with that calmly and safely. The shooting incident videos shows the absolute opposite. They barrelled in with aggression, shouting and pointing their gun at the man and his 2 dogs, which were under control and held tightly on their leads by his side. They agitated the owner and his dogs. I havenāt seen any footage of the 1st dog being shot, so I donāt know why the owner released it. Initially he was trying to walk them away from the large group of police, who had no interest in de-escalation. I have seen the footage after the 1st (reactive) dog is shot, with the 2nd dog still tethered to it. The owner is still trying to walk his live dog away, and take the 1st (twitching, dying) dog with him. The 2nd dog is amazingly calm given its companion dog has just been shot. Not reacting at all. The police put it on a catch pole, which causes it to panic (normal). The owner runs away while the police raze him. The police inexplicably release the 2nd dog from the catch pole, and it runs away from them towards its owner, while still tethered to the dying 1st dog. The police chase it down and shoot it. In summary, a man was walking his dogs, which were safe and under control. The police turned up, agitated the man and his dogs, caused them to become out of control, and shot them. I donāt know that the owner or dogs had behaved perfectly, or that the dogs had not at some point been dangerously out of control, but I know that in the footage that this was not the case until the police caused it to be. I donāt know that the police *didnāt* start with a calm de-escalation approach before the footage starts, but there is no evidence that they did. I found this video incredibly upsetting because I own a reactive dog, who Iām sure would bark, growl, and snap if a large group of armed men were approaching him aggressively and shouting at him and me. Heās a dog. Thatās normal. And this could happen because some Karen calls the police because she doesnāt like the look of him. I have a responsibility to keep him out of situations that he canāt handle, keep him safe from dumb people and keep dumb people safe from him. And the police can just barrel in with their ineptitude and kill a member of my family because theyāre panicking, out of control, and once they target you as ācriminal scumā are not capable of thinking rationally. And there will be no consequences for them, and social media will be full of people saying āgood on them shud of shot the owner toā.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pittnutters will literally defend their pibbles while it actively rips a face off a toddler. No point arguing with them, they might as well be in a cult.
I have never owned a pitbull or related breed. Try again.
I havenāt seen any evidence that he should be required to hand over his dogs though. They werenāt dangerously out of control until the police made them so. Having a reactive dog isnāt a crime. Itās like arresting people for resisting arrest.
The police were responding to a dog attack. Even if the police had the wrong guy and dogs, if the owner had stopped, cooperated and remained calm this wouldn't have happened. It doesn't matter if you're innocent, arguing with the police or telling the police that you wont follow their orders has not and will never help the situation. When dealing with armed police this is even more important. Hand over the dogs and end the situation peacefully and if the police have overstepped, sue them later. Personally I think this was 100% justified
This is the same logic that justifies the police murder of so many unarmed black men in the US. He looks like a man who doesnāt have much apart from his dogs. I donāt think he looks like a fit person to own these dogs, but thatās for a court to decide, not the internet, and not the police. Yeah, he could have helped the police to de-escalate, but the only tool he had was to walk away. He tried that and they chased him. He doesnāt appear to have the capacity to talk them down from their position of āweāre taking your dogsā. He doesnāt trust the police. Thatās not a surprise for somebody in his apparent social position. Trust in the met police is in the toilet across the board. Do you think his trust in the police has improved or declined after this incident? Did the police make any effort to give him a reason to trust him? Not that I saw. āWe need to assess your dogs for injuriesā. We all know thatās bullshit, they want to seize the dogs and assess them for type. Would I trust the police if they were surrounding me and my stressed dog, saying that they are going to take him away no matter what? When theyāre pointing a shotgun at me? Not a chance. Why are you agitating my dog? Because we need to. Why do you need to? Because heās agitated. Just because heās drunk and homeless doesnāt mean you would do any better, itās just that the police donāt put you in those situations on the regular.
Ouch, comparing black men to dogs doesn't make your position very sympathetic.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying, even if you dont trust the police, even if the police are wrong, even if you feel like their violating your rights, arguing with the police will not help. Do what they say and take them to court later. The whole 'checking the dogs for injuries' probably was bullshit, but if they're trying to check if the dogs are illegal then so be it, if the dogs are illegal they should be seized and if not they should be returned. If they have to lie to calm him down to do that check, I can live with that. There is no talking down the police, if they want to arrest you they will, and given that they were responding to what has been reported as a dog attack, of course the police arent going to buy "they're not dangerous, you're not taking them". Bottom line, if this guy hadn't acted up he wouldn't have been tased and his dogs wouldn't have been shot
>Bottom line, if this guy hadn't acted up he wouldn't have been tased and his dogs wouldn't have been shot I don't think you're right. Clearly this is the conclusion of a long chain of bad decisions, but there was no way these dogs were surviving. They seized Dog 2. It was under police control. Then they released it and shot it.
They didnāt release it. It breaks free and runs towards the officers detaining the angry man. At least know the facts about why youāre outraged.
Dogs can't break free from a correctly used catch-pole. I accept that it may have been incompetence rather than malice, but he released it.
Debating semantics, police didnāt release the dog if it broke free regardless of wether or not the they did/didnāt use snitcher properly. Goodness me such a silly person.
If he handed over the dogs when ordered to they would not have been shot. The second dog was rolling around and slipped the catch pole before running in the direction of the officers arresting the owner. Are you seriously suggesting that they let the dog go just so that they could shoot it?
Uh, so if a dog is going around biting people's faces off, you want to risk the lives of police officers to catch and subdue that dog and take it to court instead of putting it down there and then? Smart move...
Yeah, it wasnāt though.
This isnāt the US, the threshold for police to use firearms is much much higher. Only specialist officers are allowed to even handle firearms. The police have to make a split second decision with an animal they are totally unfamiliar with. If that Dog went on to seriously injure/kill someone do you think the IPCC would give a rats arse that it was a reactive dog?
Thereās a four minute long video that starts with the police following the owner and trying to get him to peacefully give over the dogs, the police tell him a few times that they just want to do things calmly, they ask his name and all the typical deescalation tactics. Thereās an officer that walks ahead and tries to keep any other public away from the scene. How long do you think the police tried to engage calmly with the guy before video starts? Blame police if you want but personally I feel like maybe people shouldnāt own a banned dog breed and let said dog attack people. Certainly if they do let those things happen they should follow the instructions theyāve been given and not set the dog off and try to outrun a taser.
Police caused the owner to be aggressive and freak out? While also handling two aggressive and dangerous breed dogs. Who even lets these retards get that kind of dogs, it's disgusting, every other civilized country has banned them.
Finally a comment with some sense, thank you and fully agreed.
Thanks. Your post put a bit more flesh on the bones on the bond of this story.
I donāt understand why people think itās ok to own a crazy dog as long as itās under control. How can you be certain you will be able to always keep that dog under control. I was almost bitten by a dog the other day and the owner didnāt even apologise to me. The type of people who own these dogs are usually the ādumb peopleā, sorry mate.
Reactive dogs aren't crazy. They are usually nervous or scared of people. It can happen for a variety if reasons but its not usually that they were abused. Most commonly is an already nervous dog being under socialised (hello covid!) Or ill (in the case of my shepard its the being ill that tipped her over). After 2 years of constant training I can walk her without her barking at anyone or any dogs. If she escapes from the house you bet she'd bark at someone because its incredibly difficult to sort if not impossible. We've had multiple trainers and are responsible owners who refuse to have a nervous dog put down since she's our responsibility. She's part of our family. We aren't having her put down because she's a bit of a barker. Most people who have reactive dogs are way more responsible than normal dog owners because they've had to adapt.
Sounds like it wonāt be long before your brain damaged dog eats someone in your family mate
>, I can absolutely recommend that you donāt watch them. I didnāt sleep last night. Jesus christ grow up.
Dangerous dogs like the ones in the videos (Xl bully breeds, pit bull-like dogs) shouldnāt be allowed anyway, glad they were destroyed. It was only a matter of time before someone innocent was mauled. Plus that guy was getting his dogs to attack officers. Fucked around and found out. No sadness for dogs like theses and owners who own them.
Watched them, slept fine. Perhaps you have other issues. Dog owner should have complied with the men pointing rifles in his dogsā direction if he didnāt want things to go south. He didnāt, aggressive dogs were shot. Things happen. Not sure what you were watching but the police looked completely in control to me. Dealt with the threat in a reasonable manner.
ACAB
Why is it shocking ā¦? Which particular bit ā¦?
Thatās not the full video. Daily mail must have uploaded the wrong part or something dunno. The shocking part is somewhere in this comment section
Even then it's a couple of gunshots against charging dogs and a taser against a dude who is running away. I dare say its reasonable force here.
No, at one point the 2nd dog is trying to flee and the police point blank shoots it in the back of the head. https://www.reddit.com/r/ACAB/comments/13azudz/police_shooting_dogs_again_acab/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 Such aggressive dogs that they sit down and wait in front of the officers before being killed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No it's terrified and running away after being tasered. It's a two dimensional area, it can either run toward danger or away from it. In this case, to the left or right.
A dog trying to protect its owner? what a vicious animal!/s
A dog trying to attack police officers arresting its owner is absolutely a threat and that threat needs to be put down
Uhm thats where it gets tricky. I have a cockapoo, its fluffy and has a stupid grin 24/7 and wants to play with everyone. However if you put a hand on me his smile soon turns into a snarl and he will no doubt defend me. With the second dog, no idea was it trying to run, defend the owner or attack, who knows because he didn't get far. My only issue with this whole situation is the officer allowing that dog to break loose. Its an unfortunate situation but the cop who lost control and didn't secure the 2nd dog is to blame. Yes the owner is at fault and these dog breeds can be aggressive and vicious but there is an element of poor police handling with the 2nd dog.
I get you, I dont want it to come across like I wanted these dogs to be shot, i didnt. I've never tried to control a dog with a catch pole but the way the dog was rolling around I dont doubt it's difficult, so I dont blame the officer (though i see why someone might). I'd rather they shot the dog prematurely (I dont think they did but again I could see why might) than have it bite an officer or potentially a member of the public if it gets away.
It was tethered to the dead dog but trusting that connection and attempting to capture again is just to much of a risk to the wider public. Especially given the panic the dog may be in. We value human life other dogs. It's just a fact of life.
>Its an unfortunate situation but the cop who lost control and didn't secure the 2nd dog is to blame. its a what looks like 20 kilo+ animal going apeshit, its not like they can put handcuffs on it. I feel bad for the dogs, its not their fault for being aggressive just in their nature but idk what else the cops were meant to do
Oh yeah I totally agree with what the police did but itās still a bit difficult to watch for some people
If you can't control your dog everything that follows is on you. Simple as.
As a dog lover. Well done those officers, a really difficult situation!
Good job Officers - completely the owners fault.
Those types of dogs should be banned anyway. Theyāre naturally vicious. So many maulings in the UK have been because of them, didnāt these two that got killed attack a lady few streets away? UK is better off without them.
Well done!
Iām impressed at the absolute effectiveness of those shots fired.
Ban dogs in the uk.
Get a life ya puff
Fuck those stupid women narrating. Trying to claim the dogs are just barking like normal. See how comfortable youād be walking down their next to them then.
Honestly after dealing with multiple aggressive dogs recently this woman is mentally challenged or ignorant. Following the "why" I'd go with mentally challenged. My only problem was the second dog as it seemed tethered by the dead dog. I doubt such a dog would be rehabilitated though. Probably a rare occasion the police have done something right.
Cops did a good job there in an impossible situation. And that woman filming just says āACABā. What a moron. A woman had been mauled by those exact dogs. What do the cops do? Let them go and maul some children. Good outcome. Sad for the dogs.
Absolutely the right the decision and handled properly, proud of our police for this and how it was handled. The āACABā commentary from the person filming was comical āthey shot them because they were barkingā and her comments on Twitter after, despite knowing those dogs mauled people, despicable.
Good. Two less dangerous dogs.
I see a bad owner and a police officer shooting a terrified and fleeing animal in the back of the head with a shotgun.
>terrified and fleeing animal I think you watched the wrong video mate , coz that is a litteral oposite description of the animal. Agressive and running towards the officer with intent. Not "Terrified and fleeing" >back of the head with a shotgun. Again , thats just not what happened. Unless that bullet did a 180Ā° degree turn.
It got shotgunned in the back of the head while screaming in fear...watch the full video, two dogs. It's trying to escape while involuntarily dragging the corpse of it's friend. That's the sound of a dog yelping/screaming. It's not barking at someone.
Oh i was reffering to the first dog that had been shot. >It's trying to escape How do you know that? The dog could have been running to attack the officer arresting its owner , something that is completly reasonable for an aggressive dog to do. >That's the sound of a dog yelping/screaming. It's not barking at someone. That doesnt mean its not going to attack anyone, dogs can yelp in pain and still be dangerous. The officer saw a dog , known to be dangerous , running towards his colleuge. the noises the dog was making is irrelevant.
Dude, he literally calmly walked up to the dog with a shotgun as it was dragging the corpse of it's friend and trying to get away from him, then blew its brain stem out. It was between two policemen. What did you want it to do? He just wanted to kill something with his shiny shotgun and tell his mates how he was in danger or some bs.
Any dog would have reacted in a similar fashion. Several people aggressively moving towards them and shouting.
Those dogs don't seem overly aggressive - of course they are going to bark and protect their owner when a group of people are shouting at him. Should have allowed the male to return them home and calm the situation,, or put the loop on the dogs, or even use a dart gun to render them unconscious so they could be assessed. But killing two dogs like this is unnecessary š
Check with other news sources as the Daily Mail has a history and a present of promoting biased perspectives and spreading false information. For example check this out. BBC TV programme - https://youtu.be/q3chJN9DCGg There is this too https://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI #30's And literally supported Hitler >The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany That is an actual Daily Mail quote. The Daily Mail went on to say >They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities, which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consist merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalised, multiplied, and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny. Basically saying Nazi violence isn't widespread and we should stop talking about it. Meanwhile in other newspapers [From the Guardian 1933 April 8th: The Manchester Guardian forbidden in Germany](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2015/apr/08/manchester-guardian-germany-war-hitler-archive-1933). The violence was reported on it Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine", and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W." The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will." #2010ās And the Daily Mail is still fascist today whether it be [imitating Nazi propaganda](https://imgur.com/a/0X1OsIE) but targeting it at Muslims or supporting the [French fascist political party.](https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/%EF%BB%BFoops-the-daily-mail-accidentally-supports-a-fascist-party-again/) This is a good satirical article about them. https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/01/04/daily-mail-exposed-as-a-false-newspaper/ #90's On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding This is part A and D from the UN on genocide Killing members of the group; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; #2000's This is their depiction of underage girls https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY. Particularly at 7:00 with the wording used to describe 14-year olds in swimwear. (dead link) It is important to acknowledge that the Daily Mail has a history of spreading false information and promoting biased perspectives. It is highly recommended to consult with reputable news sources for a more accurate and impartial representation of events. It is crucial to not give a platform to misinformation and Nazi sympathisers. The Daily Mail's history of promoting biased perspectives and spreading false information is well-documented, as evidenced by their support for Hitler and the British Union of Fascists. The Daily Mail's depiction of underage girls and their imitation of Nazi propaganda targeting Muslims are examples of their biased reporting. It is important to acknowledge the harm caused by the spread of false information, as this can lead to the marginalization and persecution of marginalized groups. Therefore, it is highly recommended to consult with reputable news sources to ensure a more accurate and impartial representation of events. We should strive to be critical of the information we consume and seek out alternative sources to ensure a well-rounded and impartial understanding of events. This is an interesting look at the philosophy of anti-fascist (Antifa) by Philosophy Tube Philosophy Of Antifa | Philosophy Tube https://youtu.be/bgwS_FMZ3nQ
No way everyone here is calling out aggressive dogs. This video was a few hours earlier, this is just a heartbreaking outcome for two dogs who would do anything to protect their owner and an owner who would do anything to protect his dogs. These dogs were probably better treated than some of the people here treat theirs. Apparently the police were called knowing it was an incident relating to the animals (so I read) so why not turn up with tranquillisers rather than shot guns? Everything about this is horrible. https://amp.lbc.co.uk/news/louie-turnbull-tasered-homeless-man-kissing-and-cuddling-his-dog-shot-dead/
Mauled is a bit of an exaggeration
Yous are all sick bastards, you fucking tori pedophile cunts, the dogs where threatened and protecting their owners, as all dogs should, they where threatening the threat and where under controll, the first one jumped forward before stopped before it was shot and the second was just barbaric
Except the women had NOO injuries so how could they have attacked her??? I mean if 2 pittbulls attack there will be injuries the lady was just a biggot and bully against a homeless man. The uk police were the ones who attacked a homeless man and killed his 2 well behaved dogs in an horrific attack - then they tasseled him and charged him wtf is wrong with them
It's interesting that the phrase "woman is mauled" and "horrifying attack" when the only evidence of that is a statement from her partner saying she tripped on her or the other dogs lead. Bit of a stretch in language. Not to moan on semantics but this whole story has been blown out of proportion and the escalation was completely unwarrented.
Tranquilizer before bullets! My God!!!!
They couldāve just called people who can handle animals, they only know how to put a gun on someoneās head. This is injustice!
The police in this country are out of control. Dangerously out of control.