NationStates

Because we're stupid, dear.

The Lone Alliance wrote:

Ifreann wrote:They get a little page on Officer Down describing how they were shot by their handlers while attempting to detain a suspect.

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
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Etc.

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?

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.

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.

---

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.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Saiwania wrote:Why dogs are used comes down to 3 main reasons.

1. Dogs have an inherently superior sense of smell and hearing than humans. Trained right, dogs can track a scent over long distances or detect what people won't. Which includes sabotaging any infiltration attempts most of the time. A would be commando likely would need to kill the dog to continue or retreat if barking will be heard or alert everyone else.

2. Dogs are inherently faster than the fastest person running. It has 4 legs and it's futile to try to outrun a canine's chase instinct generally speaking.

3. Humans as the dominant species of this world consider ourselves the masters of our environment or top of the food chain. Since when as any moral qualms or ethics ever stopped people from using lower tier animals as tools or help when this is viable?

1. This is applicable to the military, and shouldn't be for civilian law enforcement.

2. Still applicable more to the military.

3. My arguments against dogs in law enforcement are based on their ineffectiveness when it comes to detection.

You fixed the problem of dogs getting killed in civillian law enforcement by killing them in military enforcement.

I'm not for the removal of canine units, however I am for the replacement of German Shepard's with things like GSP's and Vizsla's.

Iwassoclose wrote:What a terrible idea to have an animal that can be conditioned to alert the police to anything they want under the guise of police work or attacking a person.

I have bad news for you about humans

The only dogs that should be in law enforcement are the ones on Paw Patrol.

I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

That might be a little controversial.

(assuming you are being serious)

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

Oooh, there's a blast from the past.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

Oooh, there's a blast from the past.

Ah, a bit before my time.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

This post has been sponsored by the cat society.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

I'm more of a cat person but c'mon, dogs were our first friends. Every other animal was all, "We should murder those motherfuckers" or "Holy shit, those motherfuckers are murdering us!" but some wolves thought, "Eh, ya know. Fuck it. A pack is a pack and these motherfuckers got grabby paws n' shelters 'n shit. I'll take my chances with these spongy motherfuckers, maybe it will work out."

Every other animal we had to like build fences around or 'break'...'cept for the cats. The cats just moved in like they owned the place and since they purr and watching them chase shit is adorable as long as you're not the one being chased we just started feeding 'em and cleaning up their poop. We'd already been doing it for the dogs.

You don't do your oldest friend like that.

Better them than us.

I married a pig, I dont want to be one.

My personal opinion: Police Dogs should only be used as investigative tools (utilizing their keen senses, if/when it can be done so reliably and without wrong/mixed signals from handler input) outside of armed conflict, and trained to strategically retreat if/when conflict arises. Police training of dogs is imo brutal, and many who has ever watched the full training to discipline them into K9 units might think it a cruel procedure. If they are used as peaceable tools they do not have to be trained to be ferocious attack animals.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

As a person who owns four dog's, they're only dangerous if you make them. No dog is born aggressive, it comes from the way that it's owner treats them. For example, my Vizsla, he's five years old and noticeably more grumpy when he wakes up, but that's a side affect of his old age, he stills gives smirks, and is over all a chill animal, but that's because we raised him as a hunting and family dog. Our GSP, who's unfortunately a little bit more of a Americanized-GSP, is a guard dog because he couldn't be trained as a hunting dog. He barks a lot more then the other three, and yet is still an amazingly compassionate animal, but that's because we allowed him to become a guard dog of his own will, we didn't tell him "Go stare out the window and make sure no one breaks in". I'd go on, but that'd be rambling. Dog ownership is only endangerment if the owner is an idiot.

FNU wrote:No dog is born aggressive...

You haven't met my sister's Chihuahua, Noodles. That thing was born foaming at the mouth. It thinks ankles are its natural enemy.

Joking aside, I agree, generally speaking dogs are as faithful and peaceable as you train them to be.

Narland wrote:

FNU wrote:No dog is born aggressive...

You haven't met my sister's Chihuahua, Noodles. That thing was born foaming at the mouth. It thinks ankles are its natural enemy.

I don't consider them dog's, they fall under "Unholy Abominations on this Earth" for me.

FNU wrote:

Narland wrote:You haven't met my sister's Chihuahua, Noodles. That thing was born foaming at the mouth. It thinks ankles are its natural enemy.

I don't consider them dog's, they fall under "Unholy Abominations on this Earth" for me.

In your defense, you would be angry too if you were a chihuahua.

They know there's something wrong with them. And they know you did it to them.

Because cats were not a viable option. Something about a cat aggressively meowing at a drug dealer hiding in a holly bush just didn't seem threatening enough.

why do we use dogs as law enforcement?
1. dogs are cool
2. sniff good
3. track good
4. i like dogs

FNU wrote:No dog is born aggressive, it comes from the way that it's owner treats them.

This is simply not true at all. This is just a cope from obsessive dog owner culture that cannot grasp that different breeds differ in their baseline levels of aggression along with other traits. Training can only go so far in preventing aggression and even well trained dogs have turned on their owners or on others.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

What are you smoking?

But I need to know, are we banning dogs from police and military use? Or straight up banning them from being owned by humans ever again? If you think this you must’ve lived a bad life without dogs

Cannot think of a name wrote:Every other animal we had to like build fences around or 'break'...'cept for the cats. The cats just moved in like they owned the place and since they purr and watching them chase shit is adorable as long as you're not the one being chased we just started feeding 'em and cleaning up their poop. We'd already been doing it for the dogs.

You don't do your oldest friend like that.

I would say that dogs aren't my friend overall in that I could live without them. I am tempted to believe that Islam might just have a good point in believing that dogs in general are animals which are filthy/unclean inherently speaking. They do lots of unsanitary things like eating out of garbage or how they groom themselves licking their behind and so on. I also resent all the noise pollution dogs can cause.

Most of my residential neighbors have big vicious dogs that bark at every little thing and I want them to shut up. I can't do anything about it. If I had the power of the state behind me, I'd immediately move to have those pets confiscated and banned. Perhaps then, I could finally open my window during winter when that'd make sense. The dogs all too often interfere with the birds and other wildlife, which probably belong there far more than the domesticated dogs do.

Vikanias wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:I think it would be better if all dogs were banned.

They (whether used by the police or anyone else) could chase and bite people. Also, there’s a risk of dog droppings being out of control like in my neighborhood. Dog ownership has always been a act of endangerment.

I can understand the argument that dogs are useful for drug detection and other aspects of law enforcement, but here I think there’s a greater public interest towards not allowing their use.

What are you smoking?

But I need to know, are we banning dogs from police and military use? Or straight up banning them from being owned by humans ever again? If you think this you must’ve lived a bad life without dogs

IM wants to ban dogs from existence.

Hemakral wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:Animal abuse? The dogs are having fun.

What if they get shot?

Then that’s sad I guess.

What if people get shot?