Which law enforcement agency is investigating Hasan for dog abuse and when did the investigation start?

1. What the reporting documents: a viral October 7 clip and immediate fallout

Multiple articles trace the controversy to a clip from Piker’s livestream on October 7, 2025, in which the dog yelps after Piker tells her to “stop” and viewers interpreted his reaching motion as activating a collar; Piker addressed the incident on-stream and denied abusing the dog while commentary and clips proliferated on X, Reddit and other platforms ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. Who has publicly weighed in: media, veterinarians, and PETA

Coverage shows a range of voices: Forbes and AOL summarized the viral moment and community reaction ^{[2] [1]}; a practicing veterinarian known as CatalystVet analyzed clips and criticized the on-stream handling as potentially abusive ^[5]; and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued a statement condemning shock collars and urging that Piker’s denial be true because such devices “are dangerous and downright cruel” ^{[6] [2]}.

3. Conflicting narratives: denial, defense, and supporters’ accounts

Piker publicly denied the abuse allegations on stream, sarcastically calling himself “incredibly abusive” but insisting Kaya was fine and offering alternate explanations for the yelp ^{[4] [1]}. Meanwhile, some close to him — for example a dog sitter quoted in coverage — defended him and disputed that the device was a shock collar ^[7]. Commentary ranges from commentators asserting clear abuse to columnists and commentators arguing clips are being over-read or taken out of context ^{[8] [9]}.

4. Calls for official action vs. actual reporting on investigations

Several pieces note calls from the public to report the incident to Los Angeles Department of Animal Services and heightened scrutiny online, but within the provided sources no outlet documents that an official law-enforcement or animal-control investigation was opened, nor do they give an investigation start date ^{[3] [2]}. JFeed explicitly states “No official investigation has been reported” in its summary of the controversy ^[3].

5. What sources do not say (important omission)

Available reporting in this set does not mention any specific law-enforcement agency — such as LAPD or LA Department of Animal Services — actively investigating Hasan Piker, and does not provide any date when an official probe began; if you need confirmation of an investigation and its start date, current sources here do not contain that information ^[3].

6. Legal and ethical context cited by reporting

Articles and animal-rights commentary emphasize that shock collars are controversial and can harm animals — PETA warned of burns, anxiety and aggression — and that their use fuels public calls for accountability even where legality varies; several reports stress that allegations came from video interpretation and expert readings of clips rather than publicly released formal findings ^{[6] [2] [5]}.

7. Divergent agendas and how they shape coverage

Coverage shows mixed agendas: advocacy groups like PETA prioritize animal-welfare framing ^[6]; partisan or personality-driven outlets and influencers (both critics and defenders of Piker) push narratives that can amplify outrage or mitigation ^{[2] [8]}; some commentary sites focus on culture-war or creator-feud angles, which can color the interpretation of the same footage ^{[9] [8]}.

8. What to do next if you need definitive confirmation

Given the absence of a reported official investigation in these sources, the next steps are to check direct statements or press releases from Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, the Los Angeles Police Department, or official spokespersons for Hasan Piker, and to monitor follow-up coverage from major outlets; those concrete primary confirmations are not present in the materials provided here ^[3].

Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied set of articles; claims about a formal investigation or its start date are not found in these sources and therefore are not asserted.