The killing of the Dog in Hawthorne was justified

I will be arguing for the pro, that the killing of the dog was justified. The original video has been posted in this debate. . http://www.youtube.com...Argument 1: The situationLet's take an unbiased look at the situation from the cops point of view. They are in the middle of a stake out with another individual in a house across the street. Contrary to the first video, a new video has leaked that shows the situation in a little bit more detail. This video was featured by the young turks, in the opening round of this debate, but here is the original. . http://www.youtube.com...In this video you can see that the man is directly interfering with the police's efforts to get the individual out of his home. The Leon Roswell is directly yelling at the police while they are bargaining through the loud speaker. This action could have directly violated the departments effforts to catch the criminal. This in addition to his car playing loud music, were direct attempts to prevent the police department from success. The Hawthorn PD says it arrested Rosby because he interfered in a police operation with his “loud, distracting music (from the individual’s vehicle), and his intentional walking within close proximity to armed Officers, while holding an 80-pound Rottweiler on a long leash-line … created an increasingly dangerous situation and demanded officers’ focus away from the matter at hand. ” (1)Roswell was not arrested for filming the incident, that is perfectly legal in the state of california. I am making this clear, and to the point, because a lot of the out rage this video has gotten was because of the mis-conception that the police did not have the right to arrest the man in the first place. Interfering with police work is against the law, however, and whether the man agreed or dis-agreed with the Police departments efforts, doesn't matter. (2)Argument 2: The killing of the dogOne of the main arguments against the killing of the dog was that it was excessive. Right away, I will agree with this. As per the resolution, my arguments will be about whether the killing of the dog was justified, and in this case, it was. The police, were arresting a man for interfering with their investigation, and felt threatened by the presence of a dog that has a history of violence, and danger. Rotweillers, in general are dangerous animals, and have even passed up pitbulls in the dangerous pet category. "Rottweilers have passed pit bulls as America’s deadliest dog breed, according to a study released today. The large dogs were involved in 33 fatal attacks on humans between 1991 and 1998, the American Veterinary Medical Association said. Pit bulls, which had been responsible for more deaths than any other breed, were involved in 21 fatal attacks over the same period. " (3)Rottweilers have been known to attack, and to kill. 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 Roswell tugging harshly on his dog's leash, in a poor treatment method. This type of behavior can teach an animal to be violent. 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. 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. But not only did the police officer not have time to evaluate such methods, they shouldn't have had to. The simple fact is they had no idea who the man was, or how the dog would react, and being attacked, is a perfect response for killing in defense of ones own life. Conclusion:There is emotional outrage, and maybe even a natural bias against cop, or law enforcement for a lot of the protesters. But let's keep in mind that the police were there to do their job. Whether the Leon agreed with it or not really didn't matter. The police officers were at the scene taking orders from their officials, and anything the Leon said wouldn't have made a difference in their efforts. With that said, he shouldn't have interfered with the police at all. It was unfortunate that his dog was killed, but he has to realize that it was a direct result of his own actions. If he wanted to make a point or a scene, the Leon should have put the dog away first, without involving his pet. The pre-caution of the car, wasn't well thought out or planned because the window was down. But we can assume the Leon probably knew his dog would react violently given the fact that the Leon Roswell instantly put the dog in the car when he saw the police officer approaching. The act of killing the dog, while excessive was justified because it was out of self defense, and was not an instigated attack. If Leon Roswell had never interfered, we can safely assume that this incident would never have occured.1. . http://newsone.com...2. . http://www.nwitimes.com...3. . http://abcnews.go.com...