NATION

PASSWORD

Why are we using dogs as law enforcement?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should dogs continue to be used in law enforcement?

Yes
81
79%
No
21
21%
 
Total votes : 102

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26776
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:37 am

Dogmeat wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
That's not a thing in ethics. Consent is consent, and if there's consent it's not coercion.

Maybe finish the paragraph.

Consent for dogs is much like consent for children. It's not something they can meaningfully give.

And so you, the steward of the dog/child must make sure that what you are asking of them is ethical. Because it's not something they are equipped to do.


Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals), then they can’t consent to being pets for life either. They can’t consent to any form of work, including breeds which are explicitly made for that purpose (ie sheep dogs) and would have a lower quality of life if not allowed to do that.

And before you attempt to make an excuse that farm dogs aren’t doing unethical work, farm work is still dangerous, particularly herding animals, and certainly not something you would let a small child do.
Traditionalist Catholic, Constitutional Monarchist, Habsburg Nostalgic, Distributist, Disillusioned Millennial.

"In any case we clearly see....That some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class...it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition." -Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Tech Modling
 
Posts: 61440
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:46 am

Salus Maior wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Maybe finish the paragraph.

Consent for dogs is much like consent for children. It's not something they can meaningfully give.

And so you, the steward of the dog/child must make sure that what you are asking of them is ethical. Because it's not something they are equipped to do.


Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals)


I'd argue that it would be caninizing the children.
1. Tech modling. No idea what it means, but it has a fancy colour.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Size matters. Bigger is forbidden and won't give the mods pleasure.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:50 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals)


I'd argue that it would be caninizing the children.

As the meme goes
Fur babies good
Skin dogs, bad
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
American Legionaries
Senator
 
Posts: 4923
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:51 am

Dogmeat wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
That's not a thing in ethics. Consent is consent, and if there's consent it's not coercion.

Maybe finish the paragraph.

Consent for dogs is much like consent for children. It's not something they can meaningfully give.

And so you, the steward of the dog/child must make sure that what you are asking of them is ethical. Because it's not something they are equipped to do.


Yet we send children to school, and the doctor, and all these things without their informed consent. Because they cannot give it.

The difference being a child has moral weight in and of themselves, a dog doesn't.

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:38 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Maybe finish the paragraph.

Consent for dogs is much like consent for children. It's not something they can meaningfully give.

And so you, the steward of the dog/child must make sure that what you are asking of them is ethical. Because it's not something they are equipped to do.


Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals), then they can’t consent to being pets for life either. They can’t consent to any form of work, including breeds which are explicitly made for that purpose (ie sheep dogs) and would have a lower quality of life if not allowed to do that.

And before you attempt to make an excuse that farm dogs aren’t doing unethical work, farm work is still dangerous, particularly herding animals, and certainly not something you would let a small child do.

I never said that dogs are children. I said that dogs can't meaningfully consent in the same way that children cannot meaningfully consent.

And you're right. They can't consent to being pets. Dogs typically have very little personal control over what their life is going to be like, or what their used for. That's why the obligation is own the owner to make sure that they are used responsibly, and in an ethical manner. And not used to harm people, or say... used in the way 1000 cats would use them.

I don't know why you're being so very argumentative about this.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:40 pm

American Legionaries wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Maybe finish the paragraph.

Consent for dogs is much like consent for children. It's not something they can meaningfully give.

And so you, the steward of the dog/child must make sure that what you are asking of them is ethical. Because it's not something they are equipped to do.


Yet we send children to school, and the doctor, and all these things without their informed consent. Because they cannot give it.

And send dogs to vets, and force them to swallow pills they clearly don't want to eat. Because in both cases you are acting as a steward to the creature in question. And certain responsibilities as to their well-being fall on you.

This is what I am saying.

The difference being a child has moral weight in and of themselves, a dog doesn't.

Haters going to hate, I guess.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:41 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals), then they can’t consent to being pets for life either. They can’t consent to any form of work, including breeds which are explicitly made for that purpose (ie sheep dogs) and would have a lower quality of life if not allowed to do that.

And before you attempt to make an excuse that farm dogs aren’t doing unethical work, farm work is still dangerous, particularly herding animals, and certainly not something you would let a small child do.

I never said that dogs are children. I said that dogs can't meaningfully consent in the same way that children cannot meaningfully consent.

And you're right. They can't consent to being pets. Dogs typically have very little personal control over what their life is going to be like, or what their used for. That's why the obligation is own the owner to make sure that they are used responsibly, and in an ethical manner. And not used to harm people, or say... used in the way 1000 cats would use them.

I don't know why you're being so very argumentative about this.

What makes police work inherently unethical?
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:47 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:I never said that dogs are children. I said that dogs can't meaningfully consent in the same way that children cannot meaningfully consent.

And you're right. They can't consent to being pets. Dogs typically have very little personal control over what their life is going to be like, or what their used for. That's why the obligation is own the owner to make sure that they are used responsibly, and in an ethical manner. And not used to harm people, or say... used in the way 1000 cats would use them.

I don't know why you're being so very argumentative about this.

What makes police work inherently unethical?

Nothing, if they're not being used in a capacity as attack dogs.

I don't think people who have not experienced being seriously attacked by a big dog fully comprehend how brutal that is. It's not something that ethical humans do to each other.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
American Legionaries
Senator
 
Posts: 4923
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:53 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
American Legionaries wrote:
Yet we send children to school, and the doctor, and all these things without their informed consent. Because they cannot give it.

And send dogs to vets, and force them to swallow pills they clearly don't want to eat. Because in both cases you are acting as a steward to the creature in question. And certain responsibilities as to their well-being fall on you.

This is what I am saying.

The difference being a child has moral weight in and of themselves, a dog doesn't.

Haters going to hate, I guess.


It's not hatred, just a simple matter of course. Dogs don't exist for their own well being, they exists for the well being of their handlers or owners.

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26776
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:54 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Alright, so if we’re going to count dogs as being like children (which not only do I not agree with but is completely ridiculous and clearly anthropomorphizing the animals), then they can’t consent to being pets for life either. They can’t consent to any form of work, including breeds which are explicitly made for that purpose (ie sheep dogs) and would have a lower quality of life if not allowed to do that.

And before you attempt to make an excuse that farm dogs aren’t doing unethical work, farm work is still dangerous, particularly herding animals, and certainly not something you would let a small child do.

I never said that dogs are children. I said that dogs can't meaningfully consent in the same way that children cannot meaningfully consent.

And you're right. They can't consent to being pets. Dogs typically have very little personal control over what their life is going to be like, or what their used for. That's why the obligation is own the owner to make sure that they are used responsibly, and in an ethical manner. And not used to harm people, or say... used in the way 1000 cats would use them.

I don't know why you're being so very argumentative about this.


I'm being argumentative about this because your argument is based off of a stupid premise.

And I would agree that dogs should not be simply used to "harm people". Intimidating protestors or having them attack people in handcuffs is just wrong by any functioning moral compass. But, if a dog can catch a dangerous person and save lives for it, then I would consider that broadly a responsible use of the dog's ability, and worth putting the dog in harm's way for the sake of a greater good.
Traditionalist Catholic, Constitutional Monarchist, Habsburg Nostalgic, Distributist, Disillusioned Millennial.

"In any case we clearly see....That some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class...it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition." -Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:59 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:What makes police work inherently unethical?

Nothing, if they're not being used in a capacity as attack dogs.

I don't think people who have not experienced being seriously attacked by a big dog fully comprehend how brutal that is. It's not something that ethical humans do to each other.


Sometimes you have to force ably restrain folks, thats not by nature unethical. Using a dog to prevent an attack on someone I dont see as inherently unethical.

I dont disagree that a 90 lb dog attacking a human is brutal, but if brutality is what is required to stop the attack, I am not seeing that brutality as unethical
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:36 pm

Salus Maior wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:I never said that dogs are children. I said that dogs can't meaningfully consent in the same way that children cannot meaningfully consent.

And you're right. They can't consent to being pets. Dogs typically have very little personal control over what their life is going to be like, or what their used for. That's why the obligation is own the owner to make sure that they are used responsibly, and in an ethical manner. And not used to harm people, or say... used in the way 1000 cats would use them.

I don't know why you're being so very argumentative about this.


I'm being argumentative about this because your argument is based off of a stupid premise.

I didn't think, "dog's can't be held responsible for the morality of their own actions, and the blame ultimately lies on the part of their owners," was stupid, or particularly controversial. But here we are.

And I would agree that dogs should not be simply used to "harm people". Intimidating protestors or having them attack people in handcuffs is just wrong by any functioning moral compass. But, if a dog can catch a dangerous person and save lives for it, then I would consider that broadly a responsible use of the dog's ability, and worth putting the dog in harm's way for the sake of a greater good.

I think people who think this have very limited experience with the reality of how dogs are used in police work. If you can guarantee that those dogs will only be used on 100% confirmed rapists and murders, then fine. But if we're loosing the hounds on petty criminals, then that's not okay. I'd sooner see them get away.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:42 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Nothing, if they're not being used in a capacity as attack dogs.

I don't think people who have not experienced being seriously attacked by a big dog fully comprehend how brutal that is. It's not something that ethical humans do to each other.


Sometimes you have to force ably restrain folks, thats not by nature unethical. Using a dog to prevent an attack on someone I dont see as inherently unethical.

I dont disagree that a 90 lb dog attacking a human is brutal, but if brutality is what is required to stop the attack, I am not seeing that brutality as unethical

It's clearly not required. Lots of countries have police forces that don't use dogs in this way, and they seem to do fine.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Iwassoclose
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1309
Founded: Dec 08, 2014
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Iwassoclose » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:50 pm

I cant believe how many people want dogs used in law enforcement in NSG smh

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:27 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
Sometimes you have to force ably restrain folks, thats not by nature unethical. Using a dog to prevent an attack on someone I dont see as inherently unethical.

I dont disagree that a 90 lb dog attacking a human is brutal, but if brutality is what is required to stop the attack, I am not seeing that brutality as unethical

It's clearly not required. Lots of countries have police forces that don't use dogs in this way, and they seem to do fine.

Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
American Legionaries
Senator
 
Posts: 4923
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:46 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:It's clearly not required. Lots of countries have police forces that don't use dogs in this way, and they seem to do fine.

Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.


We have unarmed cops in my town. They deal with the lower intensity stuff.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:50 pm

American Legionaries wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.


We have unarmed cops in my town. They deal with the lower intensity stuff.

I am in NYC, we dont.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Dogmeat
Minister
 
Posts: 3282
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Dogmeat » Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:09 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:It's clearly not required. Lots of countries have police forces that don't use dogs in this way, and they seem to do fine.

Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.

That's pretty much the definition of "excessive force." Force greater than required.
Immortal God Dog
Hey boy, know any tricks?
天狗

User avatar
Kaiserholt
Diplomat
 
Posts: 819
Founded: Sep 04, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby Kaiserholt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:13 pm

I'll just be as basic as I can be. Dogs have utility in law enforcement because dogs have senses that neither man nor machine possess. A tool is neither good or evil, it has a task. The task is either performed properly or not.
"Hello, Masaki home. Oh, that sounds like if I were married to the family. How embarrassing. What do you think? Do you think it sounds that way?"

"I have been many things in my life, Mollari. I have been silly. I have been quiet when I should have spoken. I have been foolish. And I have wasted far too much time. But I am still Centauri. And I am not afraid."

"You are elevating futility to a high art. There is nothing you can do to prevent the catharsis of spurious morality."

User avatar
The Lone Alliance
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8500
Founded: May 25, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Lone Alliance » Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:16 pm

Ifreann wrote:
The Lone Alliance wrote:Except handlers are likely trained not to shoot when a dog is detaining a suspect, so I don't know where you're getting your info.

https://www.odmp.org/search?name=&agenc ... &filter=k9

Yes again I'm not sure where you're getting your info that Handlers regularly shoot their dogs while trying to shoot suspects and over all looking at the site, death by police accidental gunfire is way down on the list.

But let's go over the list under the above category and see if the majority of these shootings were cops trying to shoot a suspect without caring if they killed the dog in the process.

With "Dogs killed accidentally for other reasons"/ Dogs killed because the police were trying to shoot a suspect.

Ifreann wrote:K9 Bloo was shot and killed by a deputy while members of the Fugitive Unit were attempting to serve a warrant on a rape suspect in an apartment complex on Kimberly Way SW in Atlanta.

Not the Handler. And not fired while trying to shoot a suspect 1-0

Ifreann wrote:K9 Verro was shot and killed after biting a sheriff's deputy in the area of Brooks Road and Trotters Way in Dallas, Georgia.

Not the Handler and not fired while trying to shoot a suspect 2-0

Ifreann wrote:K9 Defender was shot and killed by his handler after being mistaken for a coyote in the area of Bena Road and Neumarkel Road in Kern County, California.
Not killed while trying to shoot a suspect 3-0

Ifreann wrote:K9 Bandit was shot and killed while attempting an apprehension of a double murder suspect in Butte County....K9 Bandit was released for an apprehension after the man exited his vehicle and aggressively approached officers while raising a firearm. As Bandit made the apprehension officers on scene opened fire, fatally wounding the man and striking K9 Bandit in the crossfire.
And he might have lived if it wasn't for the pit bull. 3-1

Ifreann wrote:K9 Kastor was shot and killed after inadvertently biting his handler on the inner thigh during a warrant service in the 2000 block of Seneca Avenue.

And they attempted to resolve it non-fatally, something I doubt would have happened if the dog hadn't been a police dog. Again no suspect was shot. 4-1

Ifreann wrote:K9 Benzi was shot after attacking his handler at the agency's canine facility at 2609 McKinley Avenue.

And was put down afterwards, still no suspect in sight . 5-1

Ifreann wrote:K9 Will was accidentally shot and killed by his handler while defending himself against an attack by a Pitbull while assisting with a search warrant in the town of Greig.

Bad luck that the bullet would hit the pitbull, ricochet off the ground and then hit the dog but technically counts. 5-2

Ifreann wrote:K9 Kyro was shot after he mistook his handler for a suspect while performing a track in a heavily wooded area while assisting the Dooly County Sheriff's Office.
Mistaken Identity no suspect 6-2

Ifreann wrote:K9 Credo was shot and killed while deployed at a barricade situation involving a man wanted in connection with shooting several other people...Officers on scene fire at the subject, fatally wounding him and Credo.

It's the SWAT team, of course they shot the dog. Doesn't say if the Handler was part of the shooting but let's assume they were. 6-3

Ifreann wrote:Etc.

Let's go on instead.

K9 Trax. Attacked by 3 pitbulls and killed in the crossfire.

Horrible but I guess you can consider the pitbulls to be suspects 6-4

K9 Andy - Killed when he mistook officers from another department for being suspects

7-4

K9 Striker was accidentally shot and killed by his handler

Accidental Discharge is not "Trying to shoot a suspect". 8-4

K9 Oozi was accidentally shot and killed in crossfire as he attempted to apprehend a suspect

Got this one right. 8-5

K9 Gunner was shot and killed in case of friendly-fire while pursuing a suspect.

Killed by a police officer who didn't realize he was a police dog and thought he was simply the suspect's guard dog. 9-5

K9 Marko was accidentally shot and killed while attempting to control a subject.

A suspect. 9-6

K9 Marco was shot and killed after biting an El Dorado County sheriff's deputy during a multi-agency search warrant at a home on Cedar Street.

Shot by another agency, no suspect. 10-6

K9 Fero was shot and killed by an officer while attempting an apprehension of an armed robbery

11-6

K9 Sam was shot and killed by an officer who mistook him for a neighborhood dog.

Wonder if the ATF hired them? 12-6

K9 Zak was accidentally shot and killed by a police officer during a building search for a suspect.

Since it doesn't look like there was any suspect involved 13-6

K9 Blackjack was shot and killed after mistakenly biting a police officer while attempting an apprehension of a murder suspect.

14-6

K9 Smokey was shot and killed after inadvertently biting a Florida Highway Patrol trooper during a foot pursuit in Lantana.

15-6

K9 Art was accidentally shot and killed by his handler during a shootout with two juveniles.

15-7 And considering one of the men had a shotgun and fired it at the dog and officer, who knows if the dog would have lived if he had kept blasting away

K9 Sam was shot and killed by his handler after Sam bit another officer

16-7

So the data clearly shows, that, like I said, the most common reason for a Handler to shoot their dog is when the dog is attacking another officer or themselves, which is a tragedy but usually dogs that attack people without orders don't live very long anyway.

Ifreann wrote:
Police dogs are expensive to train, and a police officer trained in dog handling is not going to shoot the dog that could have taken thousands of dollars to train, and would require forcing them to desk duty because they're shot their partner.

Police forces get helicopters and armoured vehicles, what's a few dogs?

Do you really think a police officer that crashes a helicopter or armored vehicle for pointless reasons will have their job?
Same with a dog.

Kind of like if an officer fucks up and gets a partner killed because of their own incompetence no surprise when no one in the department wants to partner up with them.

Ifreann wrote:
It's the same reason that, despite what Hollywood movies would like you to believe, cops aren't trained to use their police cars as demolition derby machines.
If a police dog is shot by another cop it's usually by an officer who doesn't have that training and think that the suspect is about to escape.
Or they think the police dog is simply a suspects dog, or the police dog mistakes the other officer as the suspect.

The dogs are trained to attack violent and dangerous people, so it follows that they regularly chomp on cops.

Really would love to see the records of the cops that were chomped on and if their careers were ones where they turned out to be abusive cops. Dog could have simply been trying to warn people.

Ifreann wrote:
But from what I've seen, most of the time if a police dog is injured or killed in the line of duty it's either by a suspect, or by a cop that isn't their handler.
The few exceptions I see are if the police dog turns on the handler, which happens and usually reveals that said person isn't fit to be a handler in the first place.

Cold comfort to their slain doggo.
Prognosis for dogs who attack humans isn't usually very good though from what I've read. Even if the cop doesn't shoot them they're usually put down.

Ifreann wrote:
Page wrote:Look, I'm an anarchist and honestly most of the time I'm rooting for the criminals but honestly, you can't call it abuse, to the dogs it's just a game. Dogs need stimulation , police dogs might be happier than the dogs of people who just laze around the house all day.

Dogs need stimulation that won't try to fight them in self defence, and owners that won't kill them while trying to kill someone else.

Except according to your own source, that's not what happens usually, of the amount of deaths from Police Dogs, your suggested idea is a minority of a minority.

Really what you should be upset about is the large number of police dogs that have died of heatstroke because they are left in a police car. Far more police dogs have died of that than "Getting in the way of their owners trying to kill someone."
Last edited by The Lone Alliance on Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -Herman Goering
--------------
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; -William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
American Legionaries
Senator
 
Posts: 4923
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:10 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
American Legionaries wrote:
We have unarmed cops in my town. They deal with the lower intensity stuff.

I am in NYC, we dont.


I'm so sorry.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122121
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:30 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.

That's pretty much the definition of "excessive force." Force greater than required.


I meant as a general standard, if its not required is it ethical?


I could use dogs for policing and only let them off leash to prevent immanent physical harm, that would not be excessive. The training and use of the dog would determine if its ethical or not.

How about dogs who are used for private security? A homeowner buys a large dog to help prevent break-ins, is that ethical?
Last edited by Ethel mermania on Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
American Legionaries
Senator
 
Posts: 4923
Founded: Nov 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby American Legionaries » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:01 pm

Dogmeat wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Lots of countries have unarmed cops too, in the US that would be suicide.

I am not sure I agree with the standard that if its not required its unethical.

That's pretty much the definition of "excessive force." Force greater than required.


Required to what?

User avatar
Xmara
Senator
 
Posts: 4956
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Xmara » Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:13 pm

What about cadaver dogs that help the police find dead bodies that have been dumped in the middle of nowhere?
/ˈzmaːrʌ/
Info
Our Leader
Status- Code Pink- Pandemic
I mostly use NS stats, except for population and tax rates.
We are not Estonia.
A 16.8 civilization, according to this index.
Flag Waver


About Me | Great Quotes from NS | Side note: I’m female.

Support
Ukraine

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Daesterimon, Forsher, Google [Bot], Greater Miami Shores 3, Imperial Britannia, Kanaia, Land of Corporations, New haven america, Ors Might, Reverend Norv, Uiiop, Warvick, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads