Page 1 of 5

Why are we using dogs as law enforcement?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:55 am
by Iwassoclose
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.

1) the dogs are used as an excuse to search you when the police have no probably cause. they can say that the dog alerted them to narcotics or whatever illegal substance of the day and get the free pass to do a search against your wishes. Esp. people of color.

2) the dogs being used as an attack weapon.
- one there are too many instances of the police not being able to control their animal and cause more harm than necessary.

- two its animal abuse

Lopez has found police K-9s are “grossly, disproportionately” used against people of colour, inflict gruesome lifelong injuries, and often attack people who have committed minor crimes.

An extensive investigation led by the Marshall Project last year examining more than 150 severe bites found almost none of the victims were armed and most were suspected of low-level, non-violent crimes. Some were innocent bystanders. Among those cases are an Arizona man whose face was bitten off, and a 51-year-old man who committed no crime but was mauled to death in Alabama when a dog tore an artery in his groin.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xqzy/ ... xperts-say

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:57 am
by Greater Cesnica
The use of dogs should be reserved for military use, not civilian law enforcement.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:59 am
by Ifreann
Free these innocent doggos from the police.


Greater Cesnica wrote:The use of dogs should be reserved for military use, not civilian law enforcement.

No, dogs are too good and pure for war. Dogs should be for disposing of treats.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:00 am
by Greater Cesnica
Ifreann wrote:Free these innocent doggos from the police.


Greater Cesnica wrote:The use of dogs should be reserved for military use, not civilian law enforcement.

No, dogs are too good and pure for war. Dogs should be for disposing of treats.

Fair enough :p

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:01 am
by Republic Of Ludwigsburg
One of the only reason police use dogs is because of sniff. *sniff* that smells like a terrorist

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:34 am
by Ethel mermania
Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:38 am
by Jabberwocky
Animal abuse? The dogs are having fun.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:38 am
by Hemakral
Jabberwocky wrote:Animal abuse? The dogs are having fun.

What if they get shot?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:32 am
by Iwassoclose
Ethel mermania wrote:Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.


There is a difference between herding cattle and using the dogs as tools for bypassing your rights and targeting mainly minorities

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:34 am
by Haganham
Jabberwocky wrote:Animal abuse? The dogs are having fun.

The dogs are being coerced to commit perjury.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:35 am
by Greater Cesnica
Ethel mermania wrote:Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.

Drug sniffer dogs used by law enforcement are notorious for their false positive rates- well above 50% in many situations across the board. WIth false positives for explosives the statistics aren't that fleshed out, but NBC has some fascinating information on how they fail in that department too.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:42 am
by Kerwa
Ethel mermania wrote:Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.


I don’t think the issue is stuff like bomb sniffing dogs etc, but more dogs trained to give false signals at traffic stops as a pretext for otherwise illegal searches.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:44 am
by Greater Cesnica
Kerwa wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.


I don’t think the issue is stuff like bomb sniffing dogs etc, but more dogs trained to give false signals at traffic stops as a pretext for otherwise illegal searches.

Dogs also false signal in general for treats/praise, or because they smell something they're interested in other than drugs e.g the scent of a female dog.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:05 am
by Saiwania
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 has any moral qualms or ethics ever stopped people from using lower tier animals as tools or help when this is viable?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:08 am
by Greater Cesnica
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.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:18 am
by Ithalian Empire
So, there is a town north of me. A dot on a map with two bars really. Now three years ago a dude got dumped by his girl friend and decided to get high as fuck and start waving a shot gun around the town. Of course a dot with two bars doesn't have its own police to the county sheriff responded to the call. Needless to say as soon as the deputies got out the got shot at. Dude hand them pinned down in the front lawn of his house. Now, the county sheriff isn't in the habit of blasting people, so the sent for the robot to go and see where he was. Robot was killed by 00 buck.

So they call in the K9 unit. They then tell the dude that the dog is here. By know he's kinds sorta sobering up so he is no longer too sure if this is a good idea. He still refused to surrender so the K9 god sent in and before he could say "oop" it had bit his thigh and ended the confrontation. No one died but a robot. If anything a dog is a massive intimidation factor. There is something primal about being bit by a dog that makes most people just give up.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:30 am
by Saiwania
The most compelling reason for civilian police using dogs is that a canine will probably do a better job of intercepting a fleeing suspect on foot than another person can. The dog will near inevitably catch up to a person assuming it's a clear path regardless of how fast they are.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:00 pm
by Immortan Khan
LE has legitimate uses for using dogs from drug detection to tracking missing persons or fleeing criminals. What's next, flat out preventing law enforcement from using any force whatsoever?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:01 pm
by The Blaatschapen
Police uses dogs because they wouldn't hire me sheep.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:02 pm
by Immortan Khan
Greater Cesnica wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Dogs are useful in law enforcement for a few reasons, quickly finding drugs and explosives being two of them.

We have worked dogs, since they were domesticated. Not really seeing why police work should be exempted.

Drug sniffer dogs used by law enforcement are notorious for their false positive rates- well above 50% in many situations across the board. WIth false positives for explosives the statistics aren't that fleshed out, but NBC has some fascinating information on how they fail in that department too.

What is a dog's positive rate vs that of a human when it comes to sniffing out drugs.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:09 pm
by United Ballguard
Because dogs are very useful for law enforcement, largely for their ability to sniff out drugs or people hiding. I'm surprised this is even a topic. Ya'll need to give the cops a break for once.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:11 pm
by Northern Socialist Council Republics
Assuming that the facts are indeed as they are presented, then yes I’d be in favour of removing dogs from law enforcement.

Violence as wielded by the state is an inherently sensitive issue, simply because its such a dominant force from which there’s basically no recourse. Consequently I’m firmly of the opinion that for any state institution that uses violence, society is better off if they go for high specificity over high sensitivity nine times out of ten.

That goes double when that society is at peace and facing no great threat to its stability, and doubled yet again when we’re talking about civil law enforcement intended to be used against people within the state society using the violence.

Something with a 50+ percent false positive rate shouldn’t constitute “probable cause” for a search.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:52 pm
by The Two Jerseys
Because people complain when the police use bullets to make people stop resisting arrest.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:02 pm
by American Legionaries
Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:Assuming that the facts are indeed as they are presented, then yes I’d be in favour of removing dogs from law enforcement.

Violence as wielded by the state is an inherently sensitive issue, simply because its such a dominant force from which there’s basically no recourse. Consequently I’m firmly of the opinion that for any state institution that uses violence, society is better off if they go for high specificity over high sensitivity nine times out of ten.

That goes double when that society is at peace and facing no great threat to its stability, and doubled yet again when we’re talking about civil law enforcement intended to be used against people within the state society using the violence.

Something with a 50+ percent false positive rate shouldn’t constitute “probable cause” for a search.


You could always limit the use of dogs behind a warrant.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:07 pm
by Ifreann
The Two Jerseys wrote:Because people complain when the police use bullets to make people stop resisting arrest.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Several police k-9 units have died in the line of duty when officers fired on suspects that the dog was attacking.