Man Charged After Trying To Kill Police Dog

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Alyosha -

Who did what with regard to the alleged crime, resisting arrest, ect is not relevant.

The contention is with who bears responsibility for an attack trained police dog injured in the course of duty, not with whether or not the police were justified in deploying it.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Double post

Edited September 24, 2010 by Lo Pan

[HugUrPup]

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

agreed

[MolassesLass]

While I love my dogs and dogs in general I don't really agree with this concept of police dogs being given the same "rights" as human officers.

I hope the pooch comes out of it ok.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

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

Thats right, and further to that a dog is not rational, cannot be communicated with, does not have a duty of care, ect. So this can only heighten desperation and/or panic in the suspect.

[Tempus Fugit]

I would have thought a PD's main value is to find a hidden suspect or track/ catch a fleeing one.

For close in work police should be able to use Tasers if deemed appropriate instead of firearms.

There also seems to be quite a few publically acessible websites out there showing how to overpower and kill an attacking dog such as a PD or MWD. You wouldn't know whether the person you are sending the dog against has studied these or not until it is too late.

[doit4thedogz]

Alyosha -

Who did what with regard to the alleged crime, resisting arrest, ect is not relevant.

The contention is with who bears responsibility for an attack trained police dog injured in the course of duty, not with whether or not the police were justified in deploying it.

You like to talk about 'working' dog this and 'working' dog that. How most dogs are losing their working ability, not being worked etc. How some breeds are far superior and more worthy because they are work-bred and bred for a purpose etc. Now you think police dogs shouldn't be used because they might get hurt.

Of course the dog handler will feel some degree of responsibility, but whats the point of having a police dog if you don't want to use them??

So should the offender NOT be charged for attempting to kill a police dog? Should he just get off?

[Maddy]

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. edit - sp

The difference is, the police office chooses to be in that line of work, the dog just does what it's trained to do, without understanding the risks or how to avoid them.

If someone on Dol was doing something with their dog that put it at regular risk of being shot, stabbed or beaten and kicked, people would be up in arms, I guess I can't understand why that becomes different when the handler becomes a cop- the dog is still at risk of getting needlessly injured and the handler may not be doing the best job of ensuring the dog is safe. "Cop" does not mean "infallible"

[Jeff Jones]

It is not needlessly getting injured, the dog is completing a task, one which it was trained and deployed to complete. This was done as the handler believed the dog would be the best tactical tool to be used at the time. The officer would have taken in to consideration injury to the dog, injury to the offender and injury to colleagues and community members. I fail to see how you can call injuries sustained to a police dog during the course of its duties as needless, obviously there was a need to deploy the dog otherwise the handler would not have unlatched the leash.

The handler does have the option of not deploying the dog if they believe it is not safe to do so. This officer obviously believed it was the best tactical option available for the apprehension of the offender and I fail to see how anyone can criticise his choice in doing so. It assisted with the apprehension of the offender without serious injuries to the officers involved, an outcome that might not have happened had they chosen to use a different tool or means for apprehending the offender.

If the offender was compliant with police instructions or not committing an offence at the time he would not have had a police dog deployed on to himself. The offender is responsible for his actions which made police believe the dog was the best tool to use at the time to assist with the apprehension.

[Alyosha]

Well said JJ.

LP I can agree to disagree but that is all. You will never convince me that an offender threatening to kill a police dog is the fault of the police handler. The implication of the offender's previous behaviour is that the police were indeed justified in utilising the dog, as it is part of their tactical escalation of force - brought on by the offender. Police don't escalate force unless there is a reason.

The other point that seems to have gone unnoticed is that the offender was charged with the threat he made to the dog.

From the second article:

Police said Cyrus had suffered muscle strain and soreness but had no other apparent injuries.

The dog wasn't injured, the man was rightly charged with making a threat to that animal's life. Do people here honestly believe that a person who behaves in a criminal fashion should not be brought to bear for that? Are the police at fault for this guy making a threat to their dog??

And Hardy's Angel - anyone who thinks a police dog undertakes it's duties as a helpless pawn is drastically underestimating these dogs, their ancestry and training, their drive and passion for what they do, and has obviously never seen them at work.

They know risks and how to avoid them, any dog can see danger coming and make a fight or flight choice. Police dogs are just courageous and trained to the point of not wanting to flee. If a police dog ran away from conflict like a normal pet dog it wouldn't be a police dog. If a human police officer knew the risks involved and found a way to avoid them they wouldn't be doing their job either. People like this offender take away the police (whether human or dog) option for avoiding the risks involved in coming head to head with him - because he is the irresponsible one who will not back down.

Edit - still can't spell!!

Edited September 25, 2010 by Alyosha

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I am still reading explanations of why the police were justified in deploying the dog. You are preaching to the converted. There is no contention from me about whether or not the dog should have been deployed.

Remove the law enforcement context, and apply the same logic to another situation.

1. Joe feels justified in deploying his dog to attack Ted.

2. Ted hurts the dog in self defense when it attacks him.

3. It is Teds fault the dog is hurt.

Anybody that still thinks that is sound, thankyou and I agree to disagree. Anyone who thinks there is a problem and has a "yeh but ...." needs to think it over again.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Edited due to redundancy

Edited September 25, 2010 by Lo Pan

[HugUrPup]

The title of the thread is that he tried to kill the dog, but the article says he threatened to kill the dog and injured it's leg restraining it.

I bet the injuries the dog caused to the guy were more severe than the other way around.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Edited - redundant

Edited September 25, 2010 by Lo Pan

[doit4thedogz]

I am still reading explanations of why the police were justified in deploying the dog. You are preaching to the converted. There is no contention from me about whether or not the dog should have been deployed.

Remove the law enforcement context, and apply the same logic to another situation.

1. Joe feels justified in deploying his dog to attack Ted.

2. Ted hurts the dog in self defense when it attacks him.

3. It is Teds fault the dog is hurt.

Anybody that still thinks that is sound, thankyou and I agree to disagree. Anyone who thinks there is a problem and has a "yeh but ...." needs to think it over again.

What about this analogy?

1. Policeman feels justified in deploying a taser on an aggressive attacker.

2. Aggressive attackers pulls out a gun and shoots the policeman.

3. Now, is it the policeman's fault he got shot?

Same context, idea . Just replaced dog with taser and, dog getting killed with policeman getting killed.

So does the cop in my analogy deserve to die? They are not referred to as the thin blue line for nothing. People need to stop defending the actions of crims and making the police the bad guys. We don't need a world where the police don't respond because they are scared to get sued.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I'll take that as a "yeh but ...".

What you have come up with there does not make any sense.

Read my sequence again, and answer the question with no "yeh buts", and no answering a question with a question.

Then you will have your answer. If you have a "yeh but", then you are probably just letting the law enforcement context cloud your judgment.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Lo Pan

[Alyosha]

Trouble with it is that you can't really remove the law enforcement context from this one. LP I can see what you mean about a comparable general situation with a pet dog, but the main issue that comes out with this one is the law enforcement context. This dog was doing it's duty and should be commanding a level of respect from the offender, just as a police officer would be expected to command a higher level of respect during a confrontation than an average citizen.

The offender here brought about the use of the dog against him by his own actions. It was his actions that brought about the dog's deployment, so his continuing actions towards that dog were his own responsibility. He is an adult after all and under the law able to be held accountable for his own actions and decisions. He made the concisous decision to threaten the dog, that was all him.

The lack of any regard or respect for the dog's position of authority is what makes for my opinion of the offender, which still starts with a big "L".

Having no respect for anyone is one thing, going on from there to having no respect for authority is stepping up a little higher.

[ruffpup]

I'll take that as a "yeh but ...".

What you have come up with there does not make any sense.

Read my sequence again, and answer the question with no "yeh buts", and no answering a question with a question.

Then you will have your answer. If you have a "yeh but", then you are probably just letting the law enforcement context cloud your judgment.

It IS a law enforcement context, though. Comparing to any other hypothetical situation is like comparing the proverbial apples to oranges.

Just reading this thread for the first time, IMO some of the posts sound awfully like those people who complain about speed cameras and similar. People who don't break the law rarely have a problem.

If police arrive with a dog and tell someone to stay still, what kind of fool disobeys that? In some other countries the command is "stop or I'll shoot". They do, too. And no-one blames the gun.

If I was on the receiving end of a DV incident, I'd want the police with dogs and anything else they deemed appropriate.

[doit4thedogz]

I am still reading explanations of why the police were justified in deploying the dog. You are preaching to the converted. There is no contention from me about whether or not the dog should have been deployed.

Remove the law enforcement context, and apply the same logic to another situation.

1. Joe feels justified in deploying his dog to attack Ted.

2. Ted hurts the dog in self defense when it attacks him.

3. It is Teds fault the dog is hurt.

Anybody that still thinks that is sound, thankyou and I agree to disagree. Anyone who thinks there is a problem and has a "yeh but ...." needs to think it over again.

What about this analogy?

1. Policeman feels justified in deploying a taser on an aggressive attacker.

2. Aggressive attackers pulls out a gun and shoots the policeman.

3. Now, is it the policeman's fault he got shot?

Same context, idea . Just replaced dog with taser and, dog getting killed with policeman getting killed.

So does the cop in my analogy deserve to die? They are not referred to as the thin blue line for nothing. People need to stop defending the actions of crims and making the police the bad guys. We don't need a world where the police don't respond because they are scared to get sued.

Your post is an analogy of the law enforcement context, you take it out of context. My analogy puts it back in context. So if we are in this post making comments about the news article in question we should be talking in context, not remove all details and focus on what we want to. Same goes for analyzing anything. Eg, dog attack on a kid, are we just gonna analyse the confrontation bewteen the kid and the dog ("who started the fight" etc??) Or should we look at the context??(environment, breeding, family situation, pack order, dog's environment, family dynamics, trainining etc)

If you want to talk about hypothetical situations, i'll create a thread for you. I'll name it " A hypothetical situation: when a dog bites".

[doit4thedogz]

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.

So in your BSL post you were pro-working dog, now your anti-working dog. What's your stand?

You say Bans on certain breeds should be lifted, because these dogs are working breeds, not useless 'show ring' dogs. So why would you say, police dogs should be phased out.