The Video of an NYPD Officer Shooting an Aggressive Pit Bull on the Street Will Shock You (GRAPHIC) (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-video-of-an-nypd-officer-shooting-an-aggresive-pit-bull-on-the-street-will-shock-you-graphic/)


If you have a pet of your own, this video will be hard to watch. But wait to pass judgement until you hear all the details.

What are those details? Apparently there was a man having a seizure on the ground, shaking and twitching has passers by watched in horror. However, no one could help the man during his medical emergency because the man’s dog — a pit bull — was being quite protective. In fact, in the video you’re about to see, the dog can even be seen lashing out at one lady who gets to close, biting her pants leg.

Gothamist has more:

Johnny Rodriguez, who was visiting the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary nearby, said he and three other people alerted nearby police officers that the owner of the dog was in danger of being hit by traffic. “He was having a seizure, I saw him lying down on the ground and his head was twitching and shaking.” The two officers who responded called for backup (”I guess they didn’t have the training or something”) and the dog began growling as officers approached the man.



East Village Liberals Unhinged .......... Dog Protecting, Seizing owner shot by police so aid could be rendered



IMHO - cop should have tazed the dog - or shot it again, rather than leave it bleeding out thrashing around on the street



otherwise let the owner die in front of everyone while the dog protects the corpse

Man, that was hard to watch...

The dog was obviously protecting it's owner.

Ok I'm going to bash the po po!! Ready??


Shame on them for not shooting the morons who acted in disbelief and wouldn't move back when ordered to do so. Especially the annoying woman and the old man. The dog was obviously attacking the officer.

Kudos to the officer who shot the blood thirsty animal!! :yay:
The beast has a history of violence. Pit Bull Still Alive, Had History of Attacks (Plus: New Video From Scene of Shooting) - The Local East Village Blog - NYTimes.com (http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/police-shooting-star-the-pit-bull-was-justified-plus-video-of-the-aftermath/)

I thought it was a good shoot



I just :lmao: at all the :cds: in the background .......

I'm not watching that video.

Hell of a situation, but what else do you do?

I'm not watching that video.

Hell of a situation, but what else do you do?

As the parent of a child with epilepsy, I say the cop made the right choice. The reason being, the epileptic is laying on his back (he could drown in his saliva), and he is in a dangerous environment (partially in the road).

Otherwise, I'd say "don't shoot the dog". If the person is on their side and in no danger of injury from anything around them, leave them be if there's a dog. That dog is their protection when they have no means of protecting themselves.

Do not panic and be calm.
Do not attempt move the person having seizure to another location, since this may cause injury to you, the person having the seizure, or other bystanders.
Do not leave the person having the seizure. Stay with them until the seizure stops.
Look for bracelet tag and contact information for contact information or verification that the individual has epilepsy.
Protect the individual from any kind of injury. You can do this by moving chairs or other hard objects away from the person.
Do not attempt to open the mouth and put anything in the mouth, since this could pose as a choking hazard or you could injure yourself.
Gently put a soft pillow under the head to prevent injury to the head during the seizure.
Carefully and gently turn the individual to their side and allow any fluid to come out of the mouth
Do not attempt to give anything to drink or eat while the person is having a seizure.
Seizures usually last for a short period of time (1-2 minutes). If a seizure lasts longer than about five minutes, you should call an ambulance immediately.

I'm not watching that video.

Hell of a situation, but what else do you do?

It's ####ing horrible.

On the one hand, he's supposed to serve and protect. The dog, obviously a very loyal and good dog, bit and chased off someone trying to render aid to the man.

On the other, the dog turns and comes at you and you already know he bites.

On the third hand, there isn't much you can do for the down guy anyway.

He had to decide this in seconds.

If he had it to do over, best move, retreat.

Worst move; shoot the dog.

As the parent of a child with epilepsy, I say the cop made the right choice. The reason being, the epileptic is laying on his back (he could drown in his saliva), and he is in a dangerous environment (partially in the road). .

That would be fine if he then rendered aid. He just shot the dog and then did nothing.

It's ####ing horrible.

On the one hand, he's supposed to serve and protect. The dog, obviously a very loyal and good dog, bit and chased off someone trying to render aid to the man.

On the other, the dog turns and comes at you and you already know he bites.

On the third hand, there isn't much you can do for the down guy anyway.

He had to decide this in seconds.

If he had it to do over, best move, retreat.

Worst move; shoot the dog.

Well, you'd be the expert on epileptic seizures, not mAlice.

:rolleyes:

Well, you'd be the expert on epileptic seizures, not mAlice.

:rolleyes:

I am not questioning her on the subject. Don't be silly. My comment was responding to you. I hadn't read her comments yet. When I did, I wrote the following;

The officer did not render aid after shooting the dog. That was my only point, not to doubt her.

:tap:

As the parent of a child with epilepsy, I say the cop made the right choice. The reason being, the epileptic is laying on his back (he could drown in his saliva), and he is in a dangerous environment (partially in the road).

Otherwise, I'd say "don't shoot the dog". If the person is on their side and in no danger of injury from anything around them, leave them be if there's a dog. That dog is their protection when they have no means of protecting themselves.

Yes, it was amazing how quickly the crowd went to the assistance of the faux epileptic drunk once the ##### was out of the picture.

I am not questioning her on the subject. Don't be silly. My comment was responding to you. I hadn't read her comments yet. When I did, I wrote the following;

The officer did not render aid after shooting the dog. That was my only point, not to doubt her.

:tap:

What would you have had the cop do that the others who had a better opportunity to help the drunk didn't already do for him?

I am not questioning her on the subject. Don't be silly. My comment was responding to you. I hadn't read her comments yet. When I did, I wrote the following;

The officer did not render aid after shooting the dog. That was my only point, not to doubt her.

:tap:

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I do have a little experience with seizures.

I only saw the two still shots. When I quoted vrai I meant to say that I wasn't going to watch the video, either. So, I was not aware that assistance wasn't rendered. And that leads me up to my response to Lurk.

I have no idea what this guys personal situation is, but if I were walking down the street and saw someone seizing, I would probably want to help. You obviously know something that I don't know.

Yes, it was amazing how quickly the crowd went to the assistance of the faux epileptic drunk once the ##### was out of the picture.

I didn't see anyone run to his aid. They may have learned later he was having a seizure but how were they to be sure when they 1st responded?

I didn't see anyone run to his aid. They may have learned later he was having a seizure but how were they to be sure when they 1st responded?

1. The guy was known in the neighborhood, so shop owners and frequenters of that corner had probably seen his act at least once before.
2. If the guy was having a grand mal epileptic seizure, unless there was something else at work (like gobs and lots of alcohol) he would have be partially aroused in the seven minutes he lay on the concrete.
3. Nobody went to his assistance. Why? Partially because the cops eventually cleared the sidewalk but they hadn't shooed people away early in the video.
4. There was more electric emotion about the dog than there was for the drunk.

2. If the guy was having a grand mal epileptic seizure, unless there was something else at work (like gobs and lots of alcohol) he would have be partially aroused in the seven minutes he lay on the concrete.


Every epileptic is different. When my daughter seizes, it can take her more than 15 minutes to do anything more than just lie there.

1. The guy was known in the neighborhood, so shop owners and frequenters of that corner had probably seen his act at least once before.
2. If the guy was having a grand mal epileptic seizure, unless there was something else at work (like gobs and lots of alcohol) he would have be partially aroused in the seven minutes he lay on the concrete.
3. Nobody went to his assistance. Why? Partially because the cops eventually cleared the sidewalk but they hadn't shooed people away early in the video.
4. There was more electric emotion about the dog than there was for the drunk.

The dog actually survived and is in stable condition. Not sure how adoptable he'll be. I'd venture to say this wasn't an epileptic seizure but rather the result of wet brain alcoholism... something the police may have already been familiar with AND there were (according to the article) numerous reports of people being bitten by this dog in the past.

The shooting of the dog was justified and IMO, necessary.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I do have a little experience with seizures.

I only saw the two still shots. When I quoted vrai I meant to say that I wasn't going to watch the video, either. So, I was not aware that assistance wasn't rendered. And that leads me up to my response to Lurk.

I have no idea what this guys personal situation is, but if I were walking down the street and saw someone seizing, I would probably want to help. You obviously know something that I don't know.

Ok, but, certainly, you know far more about it than me. :buddies:

I meant to say that even if the cop was right to shoot the dog in order to try and render aid, after having shot, he didn't help; just an observation on my part. Vrail took it that I was saying you were wrong about what the cop should or shouldn't have done or been trying to do. Not my intent, at all. In fact, at that point, I hadn't even read your post.

My comment to her prior to that was based on having watched the video, knowing he, after putting the dog down, didn't help the guy and commenting that the officer had nothing but crappy options and, given he didn't help the guy anyway, commenting that he should have just backed off because, to me, shooting the dog and then not helping was worse than just letting the dog defend his owner.

Either way, the cop doesn't help the guy, whether he should have or not and I have no qualms whatsoever with your point that he should have tried to help the guy. As is, he doesn't help AND shoots the dog; bad/bad.

So, I wasn't disagreeing with you, at all, about whether help should have been rendered; just commenting on what happened.

What would you have had the cop do that the others who had a better opportunity to help the drunk didn't already do for him?

Hell if I know. My only point was that, if you're gonna shoot the dog, then at least go and check on the guy. The cop shot the dog AND didn't do anything to help the guy.

Should have shot the guy on the ground.

It's obvious he was demon possessed.

Ok, but, certainly, you know far more about it than me. :buddies:

I meant to say that even if the cop was right to shoot the dog in order to try and render aid, after having shot, he didn't help; just an observation on my part. Vrail took it that I was saying you were wrong about what the cop should or shouldn't have done or been trying to do. Not my intent, at all. In fact, at that point, I hadn't even read your post.

My comment to her prior to that was based on having watched the video, knowing he, after putting the dog down, didn't help the guy and commenting that the officer had nothing but crappy options and, given he didn't help the guy anyway, commenting that he should have just backed off because, to me, shooting the dog and then not helping was worse than just letting the dog defend his owner.

Either way, the cop doesn't help the guy, whether he should have or not and I have no qualms whatsoever with your point that he should have tried to help the guy. As is, he doesn't help AND shoots the dog; bad/bad.

So, I wasn't disagreeing with you, at all, about whether help should have been rendered; just commenting on what happened.

Larry, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, and I understand everything you're saying :yahoo: I guess I should caveat my response with, being there and knowing the real situation, I may not have rendered assistance, if I knew of some history of the person seizing. I'm just saying, if I walked up on a perfect stranger seizing, my first reaction would be to assist, if possible. Given what seems to be the case here, I would have at least called for help, which happened, and waited to see if I could help in some way.

I'm sure my emotions have some bearing on how I'd respond.

Larry, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, and I understand everything you're saying :yahoo: I guess I should caveat my response with, being there and knowing the real situation, I may not have rendered assistance, if I knew of some history of the person seizing. I'm just saying, if I walked up on a perfect stranger seizing, my first reaction would be to assist, if possible. Given what seems to be the case here, I would have at least called for help, which happened, and waited to see if I could help in some way.

I'm sure my emotions have some bearing on how I'd respond.

Kewl. Vrai took it that I was calling you wrong or what have you and I just wanted to clarify that I didn't mean to be.