The killing of the Dog in Hawthorne was justified

Thanks for getting back so soon!Argument 1: Skipping this one as Ara conceded this point.Argument 2: The killing of the dogContrary to my opponents analogy of Rotweillers and Asians, I am not saying that the dog neccesarily was dangerous. In fact he's right that because a breed tends to act one way doesn't mean all will act that way. But Animals still are different than humans, and can't always control their instincts. Their are countless stories, and lawsuits around the world against pitbulls who have attacked dogs and humans. Their owners will seemed shocked given their dog's home behavior. But the simple point is that not all animals can control their instincts. Rottweilers having a tendency to be aggresive and dangerous may not have the ability to control their animal instinct. Anyways, the point is, whether he did have that or not, the Officer didn't know. We can assume not, given that the dog was clearly lunging at him in the video, moments before the officer fired. Next, my opponent argues that the owner treated his dog right because they said they did."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."First off, we don't know this is true just because they said it is. If it was, why couldn't he have used more calm ways of calming the stressed dog down than yanking on his leash? To me, I can easily see this being the reason for fueling the dog's fire.Also your "surely" statement reminds me of a recent thread someone just posted. And is another argument against why we shouldn't believe a statement or argument based on a vague set of variables. (1)"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."But does this not justify the police in shooting the dog out of self defense? The Dog had no way of knowing that the police wouldn't hurt or kill Roswell. A human could have made this connection, but an animal has no idea. The animal is acting to protect it's owner, but doing so in a violent way is non-essential. Unfortunately, the dog had no way of knowing this. Should the Police Officer have just let the dog attack, and potentially injure him? This is why the Officer was justified in shooting the dog in self protection."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."This is in-accurate. Forget the fact that they had little to no reaction time, the Dog was acting crazy, and readying an attack. The officers immediently raised their weapons, but the one officer only fired when he was attacked. He didn't instigate the attack; the Dog did, which is why it was justified."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."Yeah, we get it. We know why the Dog attacked. Again this doesn't make the officers reaction any less just. They had no plan of hurting Roswell, just detaining him. The dog being an animal, has no way of understanding this. The dog attacking, justifies the police officer to defend himself."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."I technically don't have to answer this as it doesn't make an effect on the topic of this debate. The point of this is that the officer was justified doing what he did. Not that things could have gone better had everyone not been stressed, with very little re-action time. But my best guess is that they had two people hold the man down because of the obvious rebellious way he was acting, meant that they had no idea how he would act. Why would they need more than one officer on the dog anyone? His weapons should have been more than enough to handle the Rottweiler. Next: In regaurds to your tazed argument: I conceded this in my opening round. There was definitely better ways that this situation could have gone down. A lot of time when Cops deal with dogs though, they are at least pre-pared for more than a minute or two on what's going on. These cops didn't. One second the dog was in the car, the next second he was out, and barking, looking viscous. Had they had more time to assess the situation, it is likely that things would have went down differently. But in this situation specifically, we cannot blame the officer for quickly defending himself in the manner that he did. "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."First the officer never succesfully grabbed the leash. Second, this wasn't done to provoke the animal, it was done so the officer could contain the dog. Had he been able to grab the leash close enough to the dog's neck, he could have held the dog such that it couldn't attack. Or he could have tried to lead it inside. Conclusion:What happened to the dog sucks, and is really sad for the owner, and those who had to witness this. But based on the situation, I feel I have proved that the Cop was justified in shooting the dog, and that it was done purely out of self defense. There are a lot of emotions that go into seeing the dog die at the hands of a police officer, a breed of people that we all love to hate. But put yourself in that situation. Can you honestly say that you wouldbe able to form coherent thought in a matter of a few seconds to assess different methods of handling the dog? Maybe some could, but I don't know if I could have in that amount of time. At any rate, the action was justified, because if it was not done in that instant the police officer could have been injured. The dog was attacking him in that moment. He didn't have much of a chance to resort to other methods.With that said, I thank my opponent for this deba and wish him luck in his final response!1. http://www.debate.org...