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.
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.