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.
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.