625
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
625 points (93.8% liked)
politics
19098 readers
3289 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The moment a government agent chooses to violate someone's rights, they should be assumed to have resigned their position effective instantaneously.
Their actions from that point on are those of a private individual. Their previous status as a servant of the public is no matter; they abandoned that status the moment they forswore their oath of office.
A private individual commanded a dog to attack a harmless member of the public; and the dog obeyed that command and attacked that person.
The private individual is to be charged with a felony, and the dog is to be put down as a danger to humankind.
You had me right up until putting the dog down. I get what you're going for, but the dog was doing exactly what it was trained to do. That in of itself may be a problem, but putting the dog down only serves to add a level of moral and emotional ambiguity in most people's minds. In reality 100% of the blame, culpability, and punishment should land squarely on the officer.
You're right.
To the point the person you're responding to is trying to get at though -- the whole idea of a "police dog" is fucking insane in the first place.
The things police dogs are used for are things police shouldn't be doing, or are complete bullshit. "drug sniffing" is nonsense. Chasing down and attacking people is cruel on any level, either to the person being attacked, or it's cruelty in sending a dog to attack someone armed with various weapons. Either way, the dog shouldn't be part of the situation in the first place.
I'm not sure I completely agree that dogs have no place in law enforcement. I can give a few examples:
Cadaver dogs and tracking hounds are an important part of criminal investigations at times.
Bomb sniffing dogs are definitely an important line of defense.
I think there is also an argument to be made that dogs are extremely useful in specific kinds of tactical situations which I would agree should be restricted to highly specialized and well trained police units.
Where we agree is that the prevelance of K9 units that are used to give false positives that lead to drug arrests, or the gratuitous use of K9 units in normal arrests is not acceptable or warranted. It is also shown to be abused time and time again. But again, I think there is more nuance to the issue which is difficult to account for during the justifiably negative emotional response people are having to this case, and the discussion needs to be had.
In general, an animal with a record of mutilating innocent people mustn't be kept in civilization. Something has to be done with the dog. Send it to a nice farm upstate?
There are all kinds of people with various dog training/skills in this world who take in dogs with problems from not being safe around small animals, or other dogs, or kids, or men, or women, etc.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find people qualified and willing to take on this kind of dog "problem" (the dog did what it was trained to do, I'm not sure why that would be a problem necessarily. If it attacks someone outside of it's training then I'd be with you).
Hell throw in special training and some kind of state/local tax break for anyone willing and able to sign up for retired police dog owning.
Great. Dog lives.
The original trainer loses their job, though, because we don't need dogs trained to mutilate people.
Yes, the person should be charged with a crime for what he did, but the dog was just following its training as a police dog. They're supposed to do what the handler tells them to do. It's not the dogs fault; it did exactly what it was supposed to do had the situation called for the dog to attack.
> > > The dog attacked an unarmed person > >
Yes.
> > > randomly > >
No, it was far from random. The dog was ordered to attack an unarmed person.
Then I suppose the trainer is an accomplice in the crime.
What would you do with the dog then? Send it to a farm? It's trained to attack humans. We don't let a dog like that live in the city.
Police dogs retire all the time. Assuming this highly trained animal goes to a cartaker who doesn't know or issue the commands, that dog is harmless as any other, arguably more so
It sounds like you just have a problem with concept of police dogs in general. That's fine, but it's a separate discussion.
It's trained to attack on command. Remove the person giving commands and the dog no longer attacks.
The dog is not inherently dangerous because it was trained to attack.
The fuck? I was good with everything until the end.
The dog is not a danger to anyone unless the attack command is given. That's the whole point of training them.
Yes, and would only do so if the attack command is given. That's the point. They don't train police dogs to just attack whenever they feel like it.
It's not dangerous at all. Dogs are not children. The dog will never attack anyone unless it's commanded to. The only danger would be a human commanding it to do so. How is that the dog's fault?
Yet again, the dog will not attack UNLESS it is commanded to by a human.
If no one ever commands the dog to attack, it will never attack anyone. It is safer than plenty of dogs who have never had any training and attack people because of it.
There are tons and tons of dogs who attack without being commanded to and you want to kill the dog that knows through extensive training not to attack people. That's ludicrous.
It's bad to teach a dog not to attack people? Really?
No, teach them to only attack people when commanded. Unlike other dogs which could attack indiscriminately. I have no idea why you think an untrained dog is safer than a trained one. Do you know how many people are attacked by untrained dogs every year?
Did you teach your dogs to only be aggressive on command and to never show aggression otherwise? Because that's how police dogs are trained. Can you be certain your dogs would never get aggressive even in stressful circumstances? Because, again, that's how police dogs are trained.
I would bet your dogs are nowhere near as well-trained.
How do you know your dogs will never maul anyone? They have claws and sharp teeth. Unless you trained them to only let out aggression when they're commanded to, how can you possibly be assured they will never do that? Just because they've been good so far?
I do not tolerate insults. This is not Reddit. This is your only chance to stop insulting me before I block you.
Blocked.