Not really as using the same argument, HUMAN OFFICERS are legal entrapment.
Police dogs aren't wild beasts we release on people, they're trained animals that can obey commands. If the suspect in question surrenders BEFORE the dog reaches them, the dog WON'T attack and will probably just wait by the suspect till the officer comes to arrest them.
As for how an armed suspect reacts, would same armed suspect NOT resist an unarmed officer walking over to arrest them?
Dogs have been a natural partner to humans for CENTURIES so I don't get this sudden 'they're creatures we can't control' argument?
There are plenty of documented incidents where police K9s would not release their bite when commanded. Whether it's inadequate breeding selection, officer/K9 training deficiencies, or just the nature of the animal is up for debate. But controlling an animal trained to attack is not as cut and dry as you've portrayed it here.
I'm saying that there's no logical consistency between viewing your dog as a valued partner and then firing it like a missile into a potentially deadly situation.
If the dog wasn't there their human partner would be sent in. And if their human partner got stabbed and killed they'd also be upset.
There's no inconsistency, they're going to send somebody after the criminal. First one in is the one that does it for the love of the kill, whether dog or roided up human.
First, you forgot to laugh at the "Cop Squat", their ridiculous firing stance that no serious person uses in a fight.
Secondly, anyone who wants to go home at the end of the day doesn't fight one on one against insane homeless derelicts, especially black ones. Not to derail but human bites are very dangerous and there's a reason why every civilized people on earth have an unspoken rule of no biting.
Thirdly, if we want our country back we should learn to start doing that, and more, when non Americans refuse to behave.
Bloated police force that won't deal with actual serious gangs, this could've been handled by two or three people with capture poles https://youtube.com/shorts/iyoSGf399XU
If you defend yourself from an animal attack, they will prosecute you for murdering an officer. They are using the dog as a liability shield, as they sacrifice it.
A homeless black man in a big city in California isn't defending anything. The only thing left to speculate is how many innocent people that nog had to attack before the cops bothered doing anything about him.
You seem to both hate dogs and have a fairly poor understanding of how United States law works, but before labeling you a fairly obvious mudslime I'll offer you a bone.
In the United States, your right to due process only starts when you surrender yourself to arrest, or are rendered helpless and constrained. Never before. Until that point you're just a fugitive and you don't have any right to "defend" yourself from a lawful arrest any more than a burglar has a right to "defend" himself from the people whose house he's ransacking.
This isn't about your race's inexplicable hatred of dogs, it's you getting buttmad about just about the only group of cops I've seen lately actually doing their jobs and proactively getting shit off the street.
It's a pity it's Cali because that shitstain is probably already out on bail.
And your last point is a complete fuckin lie. I've volunteered for police dog training assistance more than once, even the beginner dogs are already better trained than most soldiers I've ever worked with.
Oh I didn't make a legal argument initially lol. I was laughing at the cop squat and the nog trying to fight a dog with a stick. It's pure comedy. And after all, watching other people taking Ls is what the internet is all about.
And I didn't say I thought you were black I said you were a mohammadan. And your serious lack of reading comprehension is betraying you as an obvious non native English speaker so you're just digging your own grave there.
And yeah you're absolutely outmatched here, but exactly dumb enough to not realize it.
No, it's not legal to assault an officer or the law because you don't agree that you should be placed in custody. That's not legal in even a single state.
What is the law is that if your arrest was wrongful the case against you will be thrown out and you'll get a payday out of suing the state.
I sympathize with them when they get killed. As for having the 'time of their lives' pit bulls are dumb like that. It's irrelevant, if they enjoy any aspect of this. If they kill chickens or children, they get put down. They could enjoy chewing the faces off of infants. That's clearly not going to gain my sympathy, nor does it improve any aspect of this police action.
This isn't a wild animal, it's a trained partner that's been with humanity for millenia, the only thing wrong with this scene is needing SO MANY officers to deal with one man with a stick.
This isn't about 'this' incident'. This is about using animals as weapons, ones commonly off leash. They will send dogs into rivers to chase you, if you try and stay above water while being attacked, they will charge you with murder. They will send dogs out of site, after people they know have guns.
Then don't do a crime in which they need to send dogs after you? Especially don't try to run from a police dog?
The argument falls apart at the point of 'so WHY are you in this situation?'. For every 'dog restrains criminal' we have the SAME BREED and training of dog immediately finding lost children and they don't immediately attack them.
As for guns, you risk a human officer or a dog if you send both and while officers have guns so might be able to shoot the criminal first, the 'fur missile' might be able to disarm the criminal by braking their arm with their bite, so more chance everyone lives.
Drug detection dogs are a complete scam that "fail" at their job and falsely alert about half the time. But this is exactly what the police want them to do. It's a man's job to establish probable cause for a search, not a dog's.
Not really as that is using peer pressure to force through policies to oppress citizens.
With dogs, it'd be like shooting dead a person about to stab to death a child, they are ACTIVELY committing a crime so you respond and in this instance, the dog is PART of that response.
Damn they were afraid of that stick. They even had pepper ball guns, tasers and pepper spray, yet they feared that stick so much they sent a dog to do a man's job.
The use of dogs in law enforcement is sketchy. Cops act like someone stabbing a K9 unit is no different than stabbing a human police officer, but
if you value your dog's life so highly, then why did you send your unarmed and unarmored "partner" up against an armed criminal?
regardless of context, how do you expect an armed person to react to an animal attacking them?
K9 units seem like legal entrapment.
Meanwhile if a cop kills your dog then zero fucks are given, now it's "just a dog".
Not really as using the same argument, HUMAN OFFICERS are legal entrapment.
Police dogs aren't wild beasts we release on people, they're trained animals that can obey commands. If the suspect in question surrenders BEFORE the dog reaches them, the dog WON'T attack and will probably just wait by the suspect till the officer comes to arrest them.
As for how an armed suspect reacts, would same armed suspect NOT resist an unarmed officer walking over to arrest them?
Dogs have been a natural partner to humans for CENTURIES so I don't get this sudden 'they're creatures we can't control' argument?
There are plenty of documented incidents where police K9s would not release their bite when commanded. Whether it's inadequate breeding selection, officer/K9 training deficiencies, or just the nature of the animal is up for debate. But controlling an animal trained to attack is not as cut and dry as you've portrayed it here.
It is compared to human cops, had more issues with those than dogs..
That's not true. They generally attack anyway and have little control. They often bite and attack police as well.
Don't be a criminal? Or when the police catch you say "ok you got me" and take your day in court like a human being?
"They entrapped me by making me commit a crime and then act like a subhuman"
Sure..
I'm saying that there's no logical consistency between viewing your dog as a valued partner and then firing it like a missile into a potentially deadly situation.
If the dog wasn't there their human partner would be sent in. And if their human partner got stabbed and killed they'd also be upset.
There's no inconsistency, they're going to send somebody after the criminal. First one in is the one that does it for the love of the kill, whether dog or roided up human.
These stupid zogbots need 20 officers to take down a random guy with a stick???
The way they’re moving around makes you think they’re fighting in fallujah. These guys are so gay.
They don't want to appear racist, or be charged for murder when their guns need to be used. Pure liability shield.
shit take. The man was deranged waving around weapons. The dog was instrumental in subduing him and preventing him from getting shot.
Ya exactly they should just shoot him.
10 cops and a dog vs. 1 guy with a stick that he can barely swing. Am I missing something here?
Several things.
First, you forgot to laugh at the "Cop Squat", their ridiculous firing stance that no serious person uses in a fight.
Secondly, anyone who wants to go home at the end of the day doesn't fight one on one against insane homeless derelicts, especially black ones. Not to derail but human bites are very dangerous and there's a reason why every civilized people on earth have an unspoken rule of no biting.
Thirdly, if we want our country back we should learn to start doing that, and more, when non Americans refuse to behave.
Never said one on one would be the way to go. Just seems like a couple of bean bags would have done the trick.
Or couple of these capture poles https://youtube.com/shorts/iyoSGf399XU
Capture poles plus cattle prods should be standard issue. We can't use them because muh optics, and so a lot more people have to literally die.
Oh I misunderstood you. Well sadly we don't do things the old fashioned way and just start shooting after an audible count of ten.
Bloated police force that won't deal with actual serious gangs, this could've been handled by two or three people with capture poles https://youtube.com/shorts/iyoSGf399XU
Lmao what are you getting your panties in a bunch for OP, that was pure comedy.
If you defend yourself from an animal attack, they will prosecute you for murdering an officer. They are using the dog as a liability shield, as they sacrifice it.
A homeless black man in a big city in California isn't defending anything. The only thing left to speculate is how many innocent people that nog had to attack before the cops bothered doing anything about him.
You seem to both hate dogs and have a fairly poor understanding of how United States law works, but before labeling you a fairly obvious mudslime I'll offer you a bone.
In the United States, your right to due process only starts when you surrender yourself to arrest, or are rendered helpless and constrained. Never before. Until that point you're just a fugitive and you don't have any right to "defend" yourself from a lawful arrest any more than a burglar has a right to "defend" himself from the people whose house he's ransacking.
You are the king of straw men.
This isn't about the black man, but the dog.
I hate dog's by trying to keep them out of harms way?
This has nothing to do with 'due process'
Even leashed dog will tear you apart for resisting, while you are completely compliant.
You actually tried a "no u" lol.
This isn't about your race's inexplicable hatred of dogs, it's you getting buttmad about just about the only group of cops I've seen lately actually doing their jobs and proactively getting shit off the street.
It's a pity it's Cali because that shitstain is probably already out on bail.
And your last point is a complete fuckin lie. I've volunteered for police dog training assistance more than once, even the beginner dogs are already better trained than most soldiers I've ever worked with.
I'm sorry, lets address your initial legal arguments:
Now lets review your current arguments.
My God. What was I thinking? I'm so outmatched here.
Oh I didn't make a legal argument initially lol. I was laughing at the cop squat and the nog trying to fight a dog with a stick. It's pure comedy. And after all, watching other people taking Ls is what the internet is all about.
And I didn't say I thought you were black I said you were a mohammadan. And your serious lack of reading comprehension is betraying you as an obvious non native English speaker so you're just digging your own grave there.
And yeah you're absolutely outmatched here, but exactly dumb enough to not realize it.
Mention my spelling errors. Talk down to me Daddy!
Just because cops are arresting you doesn't mean its a legitimate arrest.
So? That's for court. That's how the law works. You don't get to adjudicate your arrest on the spot.
Its legal to resist false arrest as the arrest itself is illegal. In reality you'll probably get fucked up but that's cause we live in a police state.
No, it's not legal to assault an officer or the law because you don't agree that you should be placed in custody. That's not legal in even a single state.
What is the law is that if your arrest was wrongful the case against you will be thrown out and you'll get a payday out of suing the state.
Good. If they're sending the dog after you then you should be put on an island anyway so the more charges the better.
If they're sending a dog after you, they don't want to confront you themselves.
Have some sympathy for the cops. Would you want to go in first against a 250 lb guy on drugs? Who wants to do that. Send the dog in.
They go in first with a stun gun and they're on social media as the 'bad guy' instead of the violent criminal. Let the dog be the bad guy.
Always sympathy for the criminal, that's modern society's biggest problem.
Understood. But I would rather sympathize with the dog. And I don't even really like dogs.
Got it, but just want to add that the dogs are having the time of their life.
Taking down large prey is what they live for.
I sympathize with them when they get killed. As for having the 'time of their lives' pit bulls are dumb like that. It's irrelevant, if they enjoy any aspect of this. If they kill chickens or children, they get put down. They could enjoy chewing the faces off of infants. That's clearly not going to gain my sympathy, nor does it improve any aspect of this police action.
Dog counters stick.
But seriously, why bother? It's a stick.
Approach
"Drop the stick"
"No"
"Bzzzzzzzzzt"
Cuff
Was there some other weapon (or report thereof) we don't see that justifies using a car as a shield with a 100 foot stand off?
This isn't a wild animal, it's a trained partner that's been with humanity for millenia, the only thing wrong with this scene is needing SO MANY officers to deal with one man with a stick.
This isn't about 'this' incident'. This is about using animals as weapons, ones commonly off leash. They will send dogs into rivers to chase you, if you try and stay above water while being attacked, they will charge you with murder. They will send dogs out of site, after people they know have guns.
Then don't do a crime in which they need to send dogs after you? Especially don't try to run from a police dog?
The argument falls apart at the point of 'so WHY are you in this situation?'. For every 'dog restrains criminal' we have the SAME BREED and training of dog immediately finding lost children and they don't immediately attack them.
As for guns, you risk a human officer or a dog if you send both and while officers have guns so might be able to shoot the criminal first, the 'fur missile' might be able to disarm the criminal by braking their arm with their bite, so more chance everyone lives.
Correct:
These are jobs dogs are highly capable of accomplishing actual goals.
Correct again:
Weapon.
Not officer.
Drug detection dogs are a complete scam that "fail" at their job and falsely alert about half the time. But this is exactly what the police want them to do. It's a man's job to establish probable cause for a search, not a dog's.
This is the same reasoning as "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" in the mass surveillance discussions.
Not really as that is using peer pressure to force through policies to oppress citizens.
With dogs, it'd be like shooting dead a person about to stab to death a child, they are ACTIVELY committing a crime so you respond and in this instance, the dog is PART of that response.
So long as you understand that you're defining the dog explicitly and exclusively as a use of lethal force, I guess that works.
Damn they were afraid of that stick. They even had pepper ball guns, tasers and pepper spray, yet they feared that stick so much they sent a dog to do a man's job.