Why are we using dogs as law enforcement?

[Salus Maior]

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.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

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

[American Legionaries]

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.

[Dogmeat]

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.

[Dogmeat]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

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?

[Dogmeat]

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.

[American Legionaries]

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.

[Salus Maior]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

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

[Dogmeat]

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.

[Dogmeat]

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.

[Iwassoclose]

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

[Ethel mermania]

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.

[American Legionaries]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

[Dogmeat]

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.

[Kaiserholt]

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.

[The Lone Alliance]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

[American Legionaries]

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

I am in NYC, we dont.

I'm so sorry.

[Ethel mermania]

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?

[American Legionaries]

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?

[Xmara]

What about cadaver dogs that help the police find dead bodies that have been dumped in the middle of nowhere?