The killing of the Dog in Hawthorne was justified

C1: The Situation I pretty much agree that this is how is went but even though I agree, that does not mean I am saying the killing of the dog was justified. Just because that is how it happened does not mean the killing of the dog was a guaranteed outcome. Most, if not all, my rebuttals will be about Argument 2: Killing the dog. C2: The killing of the dog. Although rottweilers are one of the most deadliest dog breed, that does not mean the rottweiler in the video is completely dangerous. "Rottweilers have been known to attack, and to kill." I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not, but "Asians have been known to get the highest test scores." Saying that the rottweiler was going to kill the policemen, is a bit of a generalization and stereotype like the thing I said above ^. Genetics play a bit of a role in the determination of their actions (i.e. a rottweiler killing, an asian getting the highest test score.) but what should truly determine their actions is how they were raised. We don't know how Rosby raised his dog, but you said: "With that said, the officers arresting Roswell, had no idea who the he was, or how he had trained his dog. Earlier in the video, you can see Rosby tugging harshly on his dog's leash, in a poor treatment method. This type of behavior can teach an animal to be violent." Because of this one action, one may think that Rosby doesn't treat his dog right, and by that they will assume that the dog is violent. As you can see in the interview video, Rosby says that the dog was family. If his dog was family, surely he treated and trained him right. http://www.youtube.com... "While the animal probably was protecting it's owner, it had no way of knowing what the situation was or what was going on. It simply saw it's owner being handled by another person, and sought to protect it's owner." Well now the whole thing about whether he's violent or not barely matters, anyone trying to protect someone they cared about would probably be violent as a last resort no matter what they're like on a daily basis. "The police officer who shot the dog, had his life in danger the moment the dog tried to attack him. In the whole matter of around 10 seconds, they really didn't have much time to sit there and decide on more humane methods to defend themselves. Sure, the officer could have tazed, or used a baton on the animal, but it still would have injured it, or even have resulted in death." They only reason they had 10 seconds to do something was because the officer was not thinking all the way through. They could've had much longer time, because as shown in your videos the dog backs away, and according to this website: http://www.tarynblyth.co.za..., a dog will walk away when it's calm and wants to avoid confrontation. Instead of thoroughly thinking of a plan while the dog didn't do anything, the officer just decides to grab the leash and not think of the consequences since like you said, he didn't know how the dog would react. Obviously the dog would defend himself, because if it was barking at the fact that the cops had his owner then he would surely attack if approached by someone he didn't know well. Also the dog saw that the man who was grabbing him was the same man who was making his owner struggle, so why wouldn't you attack if you were approached by the person who made the person you care about struggle. There police could've done other things to handle the situation. 1.Instead of just 1 cop trying to handle the dog, why not 2? 2 cops were not necessary to handle Rosby. The cop with the cuffs was enough. The 2 cops could've handled the situation without killing the dog. "Sure, the officer could have tazed, or used a baton on the animal, but it still would have injured it, or even have resulted in death." This would be a totally different story, if the dog was simply injured. Everyone would've understood and not bash the cop, taking one's life and injuring them are far from each other. As for dying by means of a baton/taser, I'm sure the dog would've survived that. http://www.youtube.com... In the tazed dog video, a rottweiler (the same kind of dog Rosby has) attacked a cop and it resulted in the rottweiler being tazed. Did it die? No. So if this dog didn't die, then Rosby's dog would probably live too. What it did was run away. There's quite a difference between Rosby's dog and that dog ^. That dog did not attack because it's owner was being harmed, it attacked just because it was mischievous. Rosby's dog though only barked when it saw it's owner being attacked. As you can see the tazed dog was much more disobedient and violent than Rosby's dog. If 2 cops were able to handle the tazed dog who was obviously much more vicious because he never backed away while Rosby's dog did 2 times, then why wouldn't the cops in Hawthorne be able to handle Rosby's dog? Also if the tazed dog who was much more vicious avoided more confrontation when he was tazed then Rosby's dog probably would do the same. 2.Do Nothing. In the interview video, Rosby said that he was telling his dog to stop so I'm assuming this is what he said right before the dog backed away. Instead of taking pre-cautions or just doing nothing at all because the dog was already avoiding conflict, the cop decides to grab him by the leash thus provoking him and like I said before, the dog had to attack out of natural instinct, because the dog was approached by a man he did not know well but what he did know about the man was that, he is the man who is making his owner struggle. So obviously, the cop was more on the negative side and the dog had to do what he did because of what he knew of the cop. Super short conclusion: The police did not handle the situation well when there were many good choices to pick from, on how to handle the situation well. The police did not have to do what was done. 1.http://www.tarynblyth.co.za...