Circleville K9 Bites Black Man

[DoggyDaddy]

I didn't see if he was speeding or driving recklessly while he was being "chased" before he was coaxed to pull over and surrender. Maybe he was and I missed it.

I missed it... was his name O.J.?

 

[KG1]

I missed it... was his name O.J.?

He pulled an OJ slow roller chase.

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm speaking about prior to him on his knees. There was some reason multiple agencies and cars were on the scene.. See it on OPLive nearly every week, 100 MPH chases through populated areas without a thought about anything other than escaping.

100 mph through populated areas.
Im ok over certain crimes, but most of them, nope. Its all good until someone not involved gets hurt or killed.
Before it gets stupid, Turn it off.

 

[BigRed]

I heard on the audio the driver doesn't like "white people".

Is he a racist?

 

[J Galt]

I heard on the audio the driver doesn't like "white people".

Is he a racist?

Impossible. He is not the correct ethnicity to be racist.

[Would it be possible to get a deeper shade of purple for posts please.]

-----

A lack of additional information (I did a very quick search) suggests that there was probably more going on that the driver was guilty of. This is 100% conjecture. I would be willing to make a decent sized bet on it though.

 

[KG1]

I heard on the audio the driver doesn't like "white people".

Is he a racist?

I think he told the dispatcher that the reason he took off again after initially being pulled over was because all the cops were white, and they were pointing guns at him.

That's the reason why he rationalized it anyway. He was afraid he was going to be killed by white cops. it was only after he felt assured by the dispatcher that he wasn't going to be killed that he then pulled over again and got out of the truck to surrender and then he gets the K-9 cut loose on him by what appeared to be an overzealous Circleville K-9 unit officer.

 

[Creedmoor]

Impossible. He is not the correct ethnicity to be racist.

[Would it be possible to get a deeper shade of purple for posts please.]

-----

A lack of additional information (I did a very quick search) suggests that there was probably more going on that the driver was guilty of. This is 100% conjecture. I would be willing to make a decent sized bet on it though.

And if thats true, you believe it justified releasing a K9 on a man thats on his knees with hands up and complying with the Trooper talking to him?

If he was that much of a threat, a few handguns would be pointing at him in the video.
But it looks like the only one Officer thought he was a threat.

 

[J Galt]

And if thats true, you believe it justified releasing a K9 on a man thats on his knees with hands up and complying with the Trooper talking to him?

If he was that much of a threat, a few handguns would be pointing at him in the video.
But it looks like the only one Officer thought he was a threat.

IDK what orange font means.

Are you an Olympian? That is a truly impressive jump in logic.

In fact, I would call that a straw man fallacy.

My comment was in reference to a lack of additional information, despite it being 3 weeks post-incident. I made no reference to the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of deploying a K9 based on one, or 2, videos.

PS. video doesn't lie, it also does not tell the whole story

PPS.
This is a good explanation of a straw man fallacy

What Is Straw Man Fallacy? | Definition & Examples

Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument of the

www.scribbr.com

Straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts their opponent’s argument by oversimplifying or exaggerating it, for example, and then refutes this “new” version of the argument—called a straw man argument.

 

[Creedmoor]

You posted this,

A lack of additional information (I did a very quick search) suggests that there was probably more going on that the driver was guilty of. This is 100% conjecture. I would be willing to make a decent sized bet on it though.

I quoted your post and asked the question,
And if thats true, you believe it justified releasing a K9 on a man thats on his knees with hands up and complying with the Trooper talking to him?

Was it a difficult question for you to answer?

 

[J Galt]

You posted this,

A lack of additional information (I did a very quick search) suggests that there was probably more going on that the driver was guilty of. This is 100% conjecture. I would be willing to make a decent sized bet on it though.

I quoted your post and asked the question,
And if thats true, you believe it justified releasing a K9 on a man thats on his knees with hands up and complying with the Trooper talking to him?

Was it a difficult question for you to answer?

Yes. It is a difficult question. It is not based on reality.

You didn't read what a straw man fallacy is, did you?

Your question is similar to asking someone what color the number 9 is. Then demanding that they answer. Then try to be condescending and insulting.

It might be a good idea to install a breathalyzer lock on your laptop.

 

[Creedmoor]

Yes. It is a difficult question. It is not based on reality.

You didn't read what a straw man fallacy is, did you?

Your question is similar to asking someone what color the number 9 is. Then demanding that they answer. Then try to be condescending and insulting.

It might be a good idea to install a breathalyzer lock on your laptop.

Good day.

 

[NHT3]

100 mph through populated areas.
Im ok over certain crimes, but most of them, nope. Its all good until someone not involved gets hurt or killed.
Before it gets stupid, Turn it off.

If you mean by turn it off to stop the pursuit that also creates a problem. If perps know that endangering others will end the pursuit that's exactly what they will do. They are criminals so if they injure or kill someone else it's not a problem for them.

 

[Creedmoor]

If you mean by turn it off to stop the pursuit that also creates a problem. If perps know that endangering others will end the pursuit that's exactly what they will do. They are criminals so if they injure or kill someone else it's not a problem for them.

Im of the understanding that some departments already stop persuits with certain crimes.
I understand sometimes its needed, but a lot of the times its not.

 

[Ark]

I think he told the dispatcher that the reason he took off again after initially being pulled over was because all the cops were white, and they were pointing guns at him.

That's the reason why he rationalized it anyway. He was afraid he was going to be killed by white cops. it was only after he felt assured by the dispatcher that he wasn't going to be killed that he then pulled over again and got out of the truck to surrender and then he gets the K-9 cut loose on him by what appeared to be an overzealous Circleville K-9 unit officer.

Yeah I've heard this "he was scared the racist cops were gonna kill him" grift before.

 

[Denny347]

While it is "possible" there were facts known to the K9 handler that would justify the K9 release, it would be VERY rare. Something like a handgun in the waist, not visible to the Troopers angle, and the suspect telling the K9 he was going to use it. This is 100% made-up by me just as an example. What is more likely is a K9 from a city of 23k people (aka tiny podunk police department) inserting himself into the Troopers' scene, causing confusion. If I was the Trooper in charge of that scene, I'd put my foot up the rear of that K9 handler after that show of stupidity. Even though the Troopers did nothing wrong, they just got pulled into this K9 Handler's mess unwillingly.

 

[DragonGunner]

Why bring skin color into this? Oh ya it’s yahoo news. So if it was a white guy the dog wouldn’t have bit him…it was because he was black. How come they wouldn’t ever say, “ dog bit a big fat guy.”

 

[Denny347]

If you mean by turn it off to stop the pursuit that also creates a problem. If perps know that endangering others will end the pursuit that's exactly what they will do. They are criminals so if they injure or kill someone else it's not a problem for them.

Im of the understanding that some departments already stop persuits with certain crimes.
I understand sometimes its needed, but a lot of the times its not.

Yup, just look at Indy. They drive however they want because IMPD can't pursue unless its more than a stolen car or driving violations. They also know that the pursuit will terminate when they do something crazy. So what do they do? They drive as crazy as they can so the officers will go away. I've seen it time and time again. One driver did just that, officer self terminated, then the driver crashed and officers converged on the crash scene. They caught the driver who had no idea the officers stopped chasing. The driver's remarks were something to the effect, "You guys were supposed to stop following me when I started driving on the wrong side of the road." The officers did, he was too stupid to notice and soon crashed into a house. Until the PUBLIC embraces the notion of personal responsibility, this will continue. What do I mean by that? An officer who pursues a fleeing vehicle, red lights and sires, clears intersections safely, and drives with due caution, but the fleeing vehicle still crashes, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBLE for the crash. I see it in the comment sections of numerous articles. Not a single comment admonishing the driver for their reckless behavior and disregard for the safety of others. Nope, the comments are almost always admonishing the officers for trying to stop the driver. The officer didn't crash anyone, the officer did not drive the wrong way, the officer did not run the red light without slowing down. Until THAT view changes, these criminal drivers will own the roads and do whatever they want.

 

[BigRed]

Perhaps a little off topic, but will ask given experiences of some here which are different than mine.

I read the dog's original handler had passed. This handler took over.

When the dog was released, he first went to a trooper at the scene and had to be redirected to the target.

So the question... What impact does a loss of and change in handler have on a dog's behavior?

From a hunting dog perspective, I have known a number of dogs that do great with the master that trains and works with them. That can be a far cry from what they do when another is working with them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Some, if not the majority, of massive CF's I've seen have been directly attributed to ad hoc multi-agency response. When multi-agency events are *planned* and everyone is on the same comms channel, same briefing, same posture, things go well. When it's an on the fly thing, oof. Many years ago I was in a similar pursuit when a small town K9 decided to insert themselves into the *middle* of the pursuit. The pursuit was running at roughly 130mph with a helicopter spotting for us and that officer decided to sit in the median and pull out after the 2nd car passed. I came real real close to a nasty crash. I've also been spike stripped in a pursuit by an assisting agency who missed the suspect vehicle and 1st car in the pursuit but managed to catch me instead, taking me out of it.

I've no doubt ISP would have handled the event without incident on their own. Now it's a CF. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Twangbanger]

Probably go nowhere. The K9 handler will say that in the moment he released the dog, he "believed" the suspect was being noncompliant. "That's what was in my head"...therefore it wasn't negligent. It's a version of the Bill Clinton defense; based on the definition of sexual relations I had in my head at the time I made the statements, "I had no reason to believe I was answering any other way but truthfully"...therefore it wasn't perjury.

The union will back him up. Dogs are going to replace the PR-24 baton.