Man Charged After Trying To Kill Police Dog

[j]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/man-c...0-1225928134279

Man charged with trying to kill police dog

From: AAP September 23, 2010 7:47AM Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these? A MAN has been charged with attempting to kill a police dog in Brisbane.

A police spokesman says officers were attending a domestic violence incident when a 43-year-old man allegedly assaulted them in Banyo, northeast Brisbane last night.

A police dog was deployed but the man then allegedly grabbed the dog by the legs and threatened to kill it, police say.

Police managed to overpower him, releasing the dog. It is being taken to a vet today to be treated for an injured leg.

The man received dog bite injuries to his legs and received treatment at hospital.

He is due to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court today charged with attempting to kill a police dog and for assaulting officers.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/man-c...9#ixzz10KTlAm4v

[Alyosha]

What a loser.

This link has a bit more and a pic of PD Cyrus:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensl...f-1225928124828

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Oh yeh a loser. For defending himself against a vicious large breed dog which was in the course of attacking him.

The police deploy these dogs to attack and then blame the suspect when the dog gets hurt.

I can tell you, if a dog attacked me, i'd defend myself, I must be a "loser". Cool i'm ok with that

[darlingdog]

Oh yeh a loser. For defending himself against a vicious large breed dog which was in the course of attacking him.

The police deploy these dogs to attack and then blame the suspect when the dog gets hurt.

I can tell you, if a dog attacked me, i'd defend myself, I must be a "loser". Cool i'm ok with that

Hmmmmm.....police were called on him because of domestic violence....then he attacked police so they set the dog to work.....then he attacked the dog.....Lo Pan, if that's not a loser I don't know what is.

[aussielover]

while i don't agree with what he did and hopefully i would never be in that situiation, and threatening to kill the dog is certainly crazy, I would think that for some people, fighting back might when a large dog latches on to you might just be instinctual.

I hope the dog is ok though

[Tapua]

Having donated my GSD to the NSW police some years ago I am familiar with the proceedure in 'deploying' the attack dog. The person that the dog wasl be released onto would have been 3 or 4 warnings before the dog was released. More fool him for choosing no to surrender and stand still. I have no sympathy for the guy!

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I don't have any sympathy for him either he doesn't interest me.

My issue, this time, and in all the other (many) occasions when something similar has happened, is the fact that the police train these dogs for attacking people, deploy the dogs to attack, and then blame the suspect if the dog gets hurt.

Firstly, dog is attacking, most people are going to defend themselves, myself included.

Second, the suspect has already (presumably) shown he is belligerent.

Third, they are sending the dog in because they judge the situation too dangerous for themselves.

So who has deliberately put the dog in danger ? The police. Who is responsible for the dog ? The police. Who is at fault when the dog obviously and inevitably gets hurt ? The police.

[Kavik]

I'm pretty sure that assualting/purposely injuring/threatening a police dog has the same consequences as if it was a police officer.

[GeckoTree]

I agree lopan, They should and probably do expect dogs to get hurt when used.

When I saw a police dog get released on someone at a party in perth around 12 years ago, the guy actually offered his arm to the dog instead of instinctually trying to run and basically clothslined the dog on the throat in mid air the dog didnt get up. Don't know if he was right or not.

I doubt he felt anything as he was whacked out on ice ( crazed party goer, not the dog), i guess the fight or flight adrenal dump is no different to people running from or trying to fight human police. probably more so as dogs are used to intimidade

[Maddy]

I don't have any sympathy for him either he doesn't interest me.

My issue, this time, and in all the other (many) occasions when something similar has happened, is the fact that the police train these dogs for attacking people, deploy the dogs to attack, and then blame the suspect if the dog gets hurt.

Firstly, dog is attacking, most people are going to defend themselves, myself included.

Second, the suspect has already (presumably) shown he is belligerent.

Third, they are sending the dog in because they judge the situation too dangerous for themselves.

So who has deliberately put the dog in danger ? The police. Who is responsible for the dog ? The police. Who is at fault when the dog obviously and inevitably gets hurt ? The police.

Agree with this 100%.

Mitchell, who suffered dog bite injuries to his legs and required hospital treatment..

Personally, I think his reaction is understandable (not right but understandable), given the injuries inflicted and it's something perhaps police dog trainers should take into account when deciding on what to train for. For example.. "If this dog mauls someone's legs, is it likely that the person is going to injure the dog in trying to stop the dog from attacking and if that's a yes, can the dog be trained to handle suspects in a way that minimises risks to the dogs while retaining effectiveness?"

Actually biting the man's legs enough that they required hospital treatment implies that the dog was doing just a bit more than bailing the guy up to stop him from running.

[blissirritated]

I wouldn't read much into 'received treatment at hospital". Any break in skin - a graze - would 'receive treatment at hospital'.

[natamalie]

I don't have any sympathy for him either he doesn't interest me.

My issue, this time, and in all the other (many) occasions when something similar has happened, is the fact that the police train these dogs for attacking people, deploy the dogs to attack, and then blame the suspect if the dog gets hurt.

Firstly, dog is attacking, most people are going to defend themselves, myself included.

Second, the suspect has already (presumably) shown he is belligerent.

Third, they are sending the dog in because they judge the situation too dangerous for themselves.

So who has deliberately put the dog in danger ? The police. Who is responsible for the dog ? The police. Who is at fault when the dog obviously and inevitably gets hurt ? The police.

So Lo Pan would I be correct in assuming you would prefer police not to use dogs in their line of work? Just curious.

[Ravyk]

Lo Pan, read the second article. The man had fled the DV incident and was being tracked by the dog.

snip

A MAN is facing charges after allegedly trying to kill a police dog during a scuffle in a suburban yard overnight.

Dog squad officers had been called to Banyo, on Brisbane's northside, to find a man who had fled from a domestic incident.

Police say the man was found hiding in a yard in Patrea Street around 9.30pm but when officers tried to arrest him, he allegedly became violent and fought with officers.

Police dog Cyrus was set on the man, but he allegedly grabbed the dog by the legs and threatened to kill it.

After a fight with officers, he was finally subdued and the dog released.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I have read both articles Ravyk.

So Lo Pan would I be correct in assuming you would prefer police not to use dogs in their line of work? Just curious.

Not necessarily. My issue is with the irrational way the buck is passed to the suspect, when it is clear that it is the police who should be bearing the responsibility.

Although having said that I do see the use of dogs in this kind of work being phased out in the long term. Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

[Alyosha]

I don't see any shift of responsibility. If a person is avoiding apprehension and as a part of that they threaten to kill a police officer, they are at fault. If that person is avoiding apprehension by a police dog and threaten to kill it it again it's their fault. You will notice that is the matter he was charged with, threatening to kill the dog.

Police and their dogs (and horses) do suffer injuries in their line of work. Because people will not submit to the law when they are called upon to do so. That doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it the police's fault, and doesn't mean that people who do hurt police or police animals should not be brought to bear for their actions. If someone does deliberately injure or threaten police or police animals whilst resisting their legal obligations as a community member then they should wear the consequences.

Put yourself in his shoes: you assault a family member/spouse, do a runner from them and police, resist arrest until a dog is deployed and despite all those opportunities you have had to submit you continue your unlawful behaviour and threaten to kill that dog? You're a loser. No respect for family, for the law, for animals.

edit - sp

Edited September 24, 2010 by Alyosha

[poodlefan]

Lo Pan:

Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

The short and rather obvious answer to that it that its better to risk the life of the dog than the life of a police officer.

And the other side of that coin is that a bite sure beats a bullet if you're on the receiving end.

[mac'ella]

Lo Pan:

Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

The short and rather obvious answer to that it that its better to risk the life of the dog than the life of a police officer.

And the other side of that coin is that a bite sure beats a bullet if you're on the receiving end.

And if the dog misses its target its unlikely to kill an innocent bystander

[SpecTraining]

Not too many people overpower a trained protection dog easily by hand. Seems the dog may have been accustom to target legs in bitework training perhaps, leaving the offenders arms free???

[poodlefan]

Lo Pan:

Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

The short and rather obvious answer to that it that its better to risk the life of the dog than the life of a police officer.

And the other side of that coin is that a bite sure beats a bullet if you're on the receiving end.

And if the dog misses its target its unlikely to kill an innocent bystander

What utter rubbish.

The dogs call off. They aren't deployed with a range of targets available and they aren't trained to kill anyway but to hold. When was the last time you heard of a police dog killing ANYONE?

[mac'ella]

Lo Pan:

Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

The short and rather obvious answer to that it that its better to risk the life of the dog than the life of a police officer.

And the other side of that coin is that a bite sure beats a bullet if you're on the receiving end.

And if the dog misses its target its unlikely to kill an innocent bystander

What utter rubbish.

The dogs call off. They aren't deployed with a range of targets available and they aren't trained to kill anyway but to hold. When was the last time you heard of a police dog killing ANYONE?

????? I'm refering to the fact its better to use a dog than a weapon because a gun can misfire or a shot can miss and wound bystanders or other police... sorry to confuse you