Man Charged After Trying To Kill Police Dog

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Alyosha - The police, like Joe, felt justified in deploying the dog. This seems to be where your main opposition lies, but the only thing that separates the two is your subjective opinion on who you think was more justified.

So as I say, I suspect that anyone who would say that Joe is to blame for his dog being hurt, cannot argue that the police are not to blame for their dog being hurt unless they are being led astray by the law enforcement context.

Take away the human constructs for a second, and focus on the dog.

As far as the dog is concerned, it is being deployed to attack. In both cases the handlers chose to use the dog as a weapon and willfully deployed it into a dangerous situation. The result to the dog is the same, and the dogs position as a dependent under the care of the handler, willing to intimidate or attack under the handlers command is the same.

In one situation you consider Joe to be at fault, and in the other you consider the suspect to be at fault, but everything is the same, EXCEPT that you think that the Joe was not justified and the police were, but this is not relevant to the dogs situation, only to the humans.

DoIt -

Lol. Thats not what I have said at all. This is why I ignored your first post because it was full of strawman fallacy.

I have not said that these dogs should not be used by law enforcement. I have said that I do not disagree with the use of police dogs.

I did not say bans should be lifted because the dogs are working breeds. I said that is a large reason why they are banned, and I said that no matter what a breeds originally intended work was, if they are no longer tested for and work bred they soon become neither here nor there as a whole.

[doit4thedogz]

DoIt -

Lol. Thats not what I have said at all. This is why I ignored your first post because it was full of strawman fallacy.

I have not said that these dogs should not be used by law enforcement. I have said that I do not disagree with the use of police dogs.

I did not say bans should be lifted because the dogs are working breeds. I said that is a large reason why they are banned, and I said that no matter what a breeds originally intended work was, if they are no longer tested for and work bred they soon become neither here nor there as a whole.

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.

Look yes we do I agree.

Most breeds are largely alike. Sure contrasts exist to some extent but you do not need 101 different breeds just to run them around a show ring. Most of them were intended for use as WORKING dogs. Now, few are bred along working lines much less tested for so whats the point. Whats the difference between a Bull Terrier, Stafford, and APBT ? Not a great deal. What about the all the different gun dogs ? All the Mastiffs ? And so forth. No we do not NEED half a dozen more breeds.

But ......

The complication is people do not want pets because they are being pragmatic, they want them because they like them not because they need them.

People still have their preferences. On logical grounds, BSL should be unacceptable from anyone's perspective, whether your passion is the preservation of the breed, civil liberty, equity, animal welfare, or ofcourse community safety, it fails on all counts.

The attitude is wrong, we have to move on positively and we cannot do that if we are still stuck on the banning breeds mentality.

Although people say that the listed breeds are fine and there should be no breeds banned, there must be something in the reasoning behind banning certain breeds given that it seems an action also adopted by many other countries I would think???

One guy followed the other guy, that is the reasoning. For example, Australia followed the UK, and it snow balled.

I don't know a great deal about all the breeds, but a theory I dare put forward for why they where chosen is that atleast some of the breeds involved are currently work bred in different parts of the world, and the type of work they do is considered displeasing. For example, the Tosa is widely fight bred in Japan and Korea, the APBT is widely fight bred in the USA, and to a lesser degree Asia and Europe, I also understand the Fila to be bred for use as a bold and aggressive guardian in South America.

These dogs are strictly selectively bred, and even then many dogs are killed as pups because they are deemed to lack the potential to fulfill their work requirements. As soon as they stop being tested and selectively bred, they begin to lose their abilities. Thats why Australia is full of essentially useless dogs, from GSD's, Dobermans, Staffords, Danes, ect you name it and most are of little use for their originally intended task. Why, because they are bred as pets generation after generation.

Does not matter what a fight bred APBT is capable of, a pet and a fighting dog are not nearly the same thing.

Further to that, i'm of the belief that even fight bred dogs are not NECESSARILY dog aggressive, rather they have all the right potential to be champions if they are conditioned to fight, in other words, the epitome of a great dog. Structurally sound, hard nerved, tenacious, willing to please, ect.

Unless a positive alternative is positioned, BSL will be here to stay.

I think I have done put one forward. If we enforce the dog control laws we already have properly (minus BSL), and introduce a system like the one I described, that is a positive alternative that will in fact reduce dogs attacks, imagine that.

First of all my post is personal attack, only if you take it that. My post about working dogs is to do with the fact that you seem to think ‘working’ dogs are more worthy, but in this thread you believe that police dogs are no use. If dogs shouldn’t be used as police dog, what kind of so called ‘work’ do you think dogs should be used for?

[doit4thedogz]

Alyosha - The police, like Joe, felt justified in deploying the dog. This seems to be where your main opposition lies, but the only thing that separates the two is your subjective opinion on who you think was more justified.

So as I say, I suspect that anyone who would say that Joe is to blame for his dog being hurt, cannot argue that the police are not to blame for their dog being hurt unless they are being led astray by the law enforcement context.

Take away the human constructs for a second, and focus on the dog.

As far as the dog is concerned, it is being deployed to attack. In both cases the handlers chose to use the dog as a weapon and willfully deployed it into a dangerous situation. The result to the dog is the same, and the dogs position as a dependent under the care of the handler, willing to intimidate or attack under the handlers command is the same.

In one situation you consider Joe to be at fault, and in the other you consider the suspect to be at fault, but everything is the same, EXCEPT that you think that the Joe was not justified and the police were, but this is not relevant to the dogs situation, only to the humans.

OK, in a purely handler/human to dog context. In terms of a Human/dog relationship context. You think it's the handlers fault for putting the dog in danger. It's the human's duty of care to keep the dog safe and out of dangerous situations, as he is the human in the relationship. So you think that, he shouldn't have used the dog in the first place (being a possible dangerous situation). In that line of work there are many dangerous situations, so you are saying that dogs shouldn't be in the police force because it's dangerous. If anything happens to a police dog on the job it's the humans' fault, because thew human put him there.

Now i get you. Human's shouldn't put dogs in any sort of work that is dangerous.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Ha. I give up dude.

[Alyosha]

Alyosha - The police, like Joe, felt justified in deploying the dog. This seems to be where your main opposition lies, but the only thing that separates the two is your subjective opinion on who you think was more justified.

Nope. I mustn't have made enough sense. Perhaps I hadn't had enough coffee?

My main contention here is the offender's responsibilty for all of his actions. That's what made him, in my opinion, a loser. Not for defending himself against an attacking dog in a general non-law-enforcement context but by behaving in such a criminal and reckless manner on the whole so that it came to having a police dog set on him and STILL carryting on like a twit. He was responsible for creating and developing the situation until it came to it's end. Like any adult, he was responsible for his own actions, they police were not.

He brought about the whole situation, he knew the police dog was able to be used as a weapon (unless he came from another planet!) and he took it on. I cannot see police as reponsible for his actions towards the dog, or the dog's injuries (or lack thereof).

[Zhou Xuanyao]

You are still explaining why you regard him a loser, why he brought it upon himself, why the police were justified. Its beside the point !!!

I cannot say anymore i'v already been redundant as it is. All the information is there if you choose to consider at again.

Let logic dictate your opinion, instead of the other way around. Wanting something to be true really really badly, does not make it true.

edit - typo's

Edited September 27, 2010 by Lo Pan

[Alyosha]

I thought that's what you were disputing? That me calling him a loser was unjustifed?? That you believed the police were at fault for him making a threat to kill their dog?

Easy - He was at fault. He is a loser. Dog is ok so all good.

But that's just the way I see it. Thanks for spirited debate LP - always good.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

The "loser" contention was a fringe issue. I have as much chance of proving he is not a loser as you have of proving he was, none. Why, because opinion on the matter can only be based on moral preference not evidence.

Who should be to blame for a police dog being hurt on the other hand can be rationally backed with evidence, especially if I can first establish someone's opinion on the Joe and Ted example.

Likewise

[luvmeveges]

DoIt -

Lol. Thats not what I have said at all. This is why I ignored your first post because it was full of strawman fallacy.

Still shitstirring "doit"