• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could more K9s be a Solution?

blackjack50 said:
You didn't respond to the question. You broad brushed a classic "libertarian" response that essentially says that any government action is corrupt and then you compared government actions to the gestapo. It was already addressed.

The question is: will using police dogs reduce the amount of non compliant suspects getting shot? Will it be effective in gaining compliance from non compliant suspects? Or are you one of those people who believes that officers should just "leave someone alone" after they have crashed a car, driven erratically for miles, acts aggressive towards other citizens, high/drunk and erratic? You know. The general bull**** police deal with daily?

We see it in the news all the time. And I am willing to bet YOUR money that most of these incidents would have ended with a surrendering suspect who would get his or her day in court...if a police dog had been there and been used properly. People tend to listen to the dog. They are too stupid to listen to the people pointing guns at them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. If I may ask a question, what are the potential downside effects of having more dogs?

For the record, I like dogs fine. I've owned and trained a number of working dogs, mostly Dobermans. I love them.

My concerns are that for a group that sees itself "protecting and defending society", and hoping to be admired and respected by that society, introducing more police dogs into the equation will likely make matters worse than it already is.

Too often the cops are not liked or respected, for many reasons not the subject of the thread, and having more of them with snarling dogs in the back of the squad car will likely make that perception worse.
 
blackjack50 said:
I am more than willing to see the negatives. And there are certainly some big ones. Police dogs are expensive. They can be expensive when talking about litigation, but they are cheaper than a wrongful death case or the damage caused after a protest of the shooting of an "unarmed" or non compliant suspect.

The big thing is that they require special training. It isn't easy to just "go get one." But they are extremely effective tools for gaining compliance from someone who is non responsive to other orders. And many k9 officers will attest to it. Hell most officers will attest to how quickly compliance is gained after just having the dog bark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

agreed

another draw back would be you can't give just anyone a K9. officers have to live and breathe with that dog and that dog has to attach itself to its handler with a trust like no other, it has to have blind trust so that when the officer gives the order to go and the dog is about to hurl itself upon the suspect, when that officers screams stop that dog has to over ride the previous order and fall back

that is trust, that is intelligence

and speaking of intelligence, that is one of the problems with trigger happy officers...in many cases I believe the fault is not the officers but a lack of the ability to process in highly volatile situations,

an officer with an IQ of 98 will not respond like an officer with an IQ of 115

it just isn't probable....ability to analyse, assess and respond correctly...not really for everyone but we still hire them because training costs thousands and thousands of dollars...if I can go off and be a CEO I am hanging up the blues

If I can be a detective I am hanging up the blues

there will always be smart, loyal dedicated blues

but

just sayin'

dogs don't have that problem...they undergo more screening and better training...sad but true
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yes I am making the assumption that the civilian is innocent until proven guilty. its kind of a big thing here in the States that we presume innocence. Its one of those things that sets us apart from places like China or North Korea. Take it away and we are no better.

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

"presumption of innocence

n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime, which requires the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is opposite from the criminal law in many countries, where the accused is considered guilty until he/ she proves his/her innocence or the government completely fails to prove its case."
Click to expand...

And when their not? There's no "right to get off the first shot". Dogs make it much harder to smuggle material. Plus, if they do try to draw, a dog will likely panic them and mess with their aim.
 
A fully trained Police K9 dog is expensive, not only to train, but also to maintain, and a relatively short working life time, years in single digits IIRC.
For each K9 dog, you also have a fully trained K9 officer.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. If I may ask a question, what are the potential downside effects of having more dogs?

My concerns are that for a group that sees itself "protecting and defending society", and hoping to be admired and respected by that society, introducing more police dogs into the equation will likely make matters worse than it already is.

Too often the cops are not liked or respected, for many reasons not the subject of the thread, and having more of them with snarling dogs in the back of the squad car will likely make that perception worse.
Click to expand...

dogs are easier to love and respond to than some fool with a low IQ, fear in his heart and a gun in his hand

that guy won't get the dog
 
_Sal said:
dogs are easier to love and respond to than some fool with a low IQ, fear in his heart and a gun in his hand

that guy won't get the dog
Click to expand...

Dogs trained to catch people, and on the end of a leash and facing you are NOT easy to love. Further, many or most humans are intimidated by such dogs naturally.

Even Donald Rumsfeld suggested using dogs against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraid. It is a technique of intimidation, not love and respect.
 
_Sal said:
yup

it's time and well worth the money
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, however, I don't think that particular aspect has been posted on before, so I just thought I'd bring it up.
 
Just threaten to release some big assed (non-poisonous) snakes on 'em. They'll comply.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Dogs trained to catch people, and on the end of a leash and facing you or NOT easy to love. Further, many or most humans are intimidated by such dogs naturally.

Even Donald Rumsfeld suggested using dogs against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraid. It is a technique of intimidation, not love and respect.
Click to expand...

that was not my point...

it is easier to recover from a dog attack than a bullet

a dog is a sentient being, a bullet is not

a K9 handler is a special kind of individual, highly trained and skilled

we need to raise our standards and this would be an exceptionally good beginning

we (the public) deserve a chance...I would rather face a snarling dog mauling me to put me down onto the ground than a bullet...just me
 
_Sal said:
that was not my point...

it is easier to recover from a dog attack than a bullet

a dog is a sentient being, a bullet is not

a K9 handler is a special kind of individual, highly trained and skilled

we need to raise our standards and this would be an exceptionally good beginning

we (the public) deserve a chance...I would rather face a snarling dog mauling me to put me down onto the ground than a bullet...just me
Click to expand...

I do understand your point, but it is still nothing but theory, appropriate for the hypothetical/rhetorical question that is the thread subject. In real life, most people are put into panic or agitation in the presence of an adversarial dog.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. If I may ask a question, what are the potential downside effects of having more dogs?

For the record, I like dogs fine. I've owned and trained a number of working dogs, mostly Dobermans. I love them.

My concerns are that for a group that sees itself "protecting and defending society", and hoping to be admired and respected by that society, introducing more police dogs into the equation will likely make matters worse than it already is.

Too often the cops are not liked or respected, for many reasons not the subject of the thread, and having more of them with snarling dogs in the back of the squad car will likely make that perception worse.
Click to expand...

You know that departments can decide who becomes a K9 officer right? And that the reason we don't have more dogs is because the dogs are harder to train and get than the people right? But I want to touch on something...is there something wrong with wanting to be admired and respected? Isn't that a GOOD thing to want?

But the thing is...those people who "don't respect police" aren't really the problem. It is the ones that don't listen and become unreasonable. For WHATEVER reason. Be it drugs, **** the police, or they are just mentally unstable. At what point is an officer allowed to force compliance? If you take the word of most of the protestors...it would be never.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thoreau72 said:
Dogs trained to catch people, and on the end of a leash and facing you are NOT easy to love. Further, many or most humans are intimidated by such dogs naturally.

Even Donald Rumsfeld suggested using dogs against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraid. It is a technique of intimidation, not love and respect.
Click to expand...

You realize that you SHOULD feel intimidated if you are not complying with police orders and are acting irrationally right? Intimidation is kind of the objective. You don't get to just Willy nilly resist lawful orders from police. And for good reason. They would never arrest anyone if that were the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thoreau72 said:
I do understand your point, but it is still nothing but theory, appropriate for the hypothetical/rhetorical question that is the thread subject. In real life, most people are put into panic or agitation in the presence of an adversarial dog.
Click to expand...

but still it is safer to face an adversarial dog controlled by a K9 officer than to face some scared, freaked out, poorly trained, hair-triggered blue

it would be way better for the public both those who offend and those who are innocent but appear to be offending

dogs are so intelligent, and they have intuition as well, a cop would be calmer and better able to assess a situation with a dog at his side able to protect and defend, chase and bring to ground, sniff and find

I think we should consider this approach
 
blackjack50 said:
You know that departments can decide who becomes a K9 officer right? And that the reason we don't have more dogs is because the dogs are harder to train and get than the people right? But I want to touch on something...is there something wrong with wanting to be admired and respected? Isn't that a GOOD thing to want?

But the thing is...those people who "don't respect police" aren't really the problem. It is the ones that don't listen and become unreasonable. For WHATEVER reason. Be it drugs, **** the police, or they are just mentally unstable. At what point is an officer allowed to force compliance? If you take the word of most of the protestors...it would be never.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
It is perfectly normal to want to be respected and admired. I'm all for it.

Trouble is, when a group is enforcing poor policy and law, such respect and admiration is difficult to attain. That is one reason I support Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Confronting the public with snarling dogs on leashes is NOT a good way to attain the public's respect and admiration.
Click to expand...
 
_Sal said:
well there are snakes

and then

there are snakes :2razz:

a spider would fell me faster
Click to expand...

A big, hairy spider would more quickly do me in than anything else too. Last year at this time I was running around the back roads of the southwest, and found some California tarantula dens, or whatever they're actually called. I didn't do any poking around, believe me. For whatever irrational reason, those big things give me the creeps.
 
blackjack50 said:
You realize that you SHOULD feel intimidated if you are not complying with police orders and are acting irrationally right? Intimidation is kind of the objective. You don't get to just Willy nilly resist lawful orders from police. And for good reason. They would never arrest anyone if that were the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are operating on the false assumption that members of the public are as rational and calm as you are?

For many reasons they are not, and confronting them with a snarling dog only escalates the fear and anxiety.

Do the police like to escalate a situation?
 
humbolt said:
A big, hairy spider would more quickly do me in than anything else too. Last year at this time I was running around the back roads of the southwest, and found some California tarantula dens, or whatever they're actually called. I didn't do any poking around, believe me. For whatever irrational reason, those big things give me the creeps.
Click to expand...

humbolt said:
Just threaten to release some big assed (non-poisonous) snakes on 'em. They'll comply.
Click to expand...

I think now I'm beginning to flesh out more of the Humbolt real life personality.
 
_Sal said:
:thumbs:

sure, understood

from a cost perspective in the long run it may be cheaper, safer for the police and for the public
Click to expand...

Sure, it may be. I really don't know, but I do know that K9 units have additional costs over a regular police officer, which is all I was saying.

:)
 
blackjack50 said:
We see this all the time. We also hear it. A lot of criminals are terrified of dogs. With good reason too. Dogs are tough animals with a nasty bite that is a lot worse than their bark. With all these incidents of people failing to comply, maybe because of drugs, lack of understanding, or just plain stupidity on someone's part (no accusation)...do you think introducing mor K-9 units could help?

We know that a lot of people are more scared of dogs than guns. And it may actually end up keeping someone from getting shot. And it actually serves as a deterrent and has other potential positives.

Do you think this is a realistic solution to our problem with the shootings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Water cannons are the answer.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Oh wow, really? So you're saying the right to be innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in America anymore and that anyone shot or bitten by police are automatically guilty? Can you back that up with some laws or constitutional references?



If you think dogs can't be racist you seriously haven't met many dogs. Lots of dogs are racist. The puppies our platoon raised in Afghanistan were racist as **** against anyone with skin lighter than creme.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept for courts, it has no bearing on when a subject needs to be arrested and taken to court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom