• 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?

FreedomFromAll said:
Yea and the premise of this thread is the government using more dogs to terrorize people, so they wont commit crimes. Perhaps you should reread the OP?

If you do read the OP you'll notice that not only is the premise that dogs terrorize criminals but implies that the use of more dogs would somehow help reduce shootings. I guess that would be done by sicking dogs onto people instead of shooting them? Sicking dogs onto suspects really isnt any different than just beating up suspects instead of killing them. So the big solution is that beating suspects is better than killing them. I would hate to be a suspect either way.

This also points towards vetting innocent citizens by using dogs to search them for firearms. And I dont care if you find it ridiculous, what is wrong is wrong. ANd is wrong to treat Americans citizens as if they already committed a crime without a care about due process.
Click to expand...

Dogs don't need to be, and should not be, "sicked" or sicced on to anyone, but they can definitely tell us when someone has a gun. The shooter might be able to hide the gun from a human being, but not from a dog's nose.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yea and the premise of this thread is the government using more dogs to terrorize people, so they wont commit crimes. Perhaps you should reread the OP?

If you do read the OP you'll notice that not only is the premise that dogs terrorize criminals but implies that the use of more dogs would somehow help reduce shootings. I guess that would be done by sicking dogs onto people instead of shooting them? Sicking dogs onto suspects really isnt any different than just beating up suspects instead of killing them. So the big solution is that beating suspects is better than killing them. I would hate to be a suspect either way.

This also points towards vetting innocent citizens by using dogs to search them for firearms. And I dont care if you find it ridiculous, what is wrong is wrong. ANd is wrong to treat Americans citizens as if they already committed a crime without a care about due process.
Click to expand...

Your making a couple of big assumptions here. One, that the civillian is innocent; two, that the dogs will be "sicced" on suspects when often times their intimidation factor is just as good; and three, that dogs have no purpose in law enforcement other than to "terrorize"

Dogs have been proven to have an effect in deterring crime.
 
I think every Cop should travel with a dog,, Police dogs are trained to grab & shake a suspect, Not tear out the throat.

I think criminals have a great fear of a police dog. As a child I had a German Shepard ( did not make the cut) police dog. Was a great dog

Why do criminals fear police dogs,, That's easy, Dogs don't negotiate.. They don't care if you are "Mental", On drugs, what ever...

Problem is that well trained police dogs are expensive. They cannot be "expendable" per se.

They are a police officer just like a human, and have to be treated as such. if a criminal shoots a police dog they have to be charged the same as if the shot a human police officer.

Yea and the premise of this thread is the government using more dogs to terrorize people, so they wont commit crimes. Perhaps you should reread the OP?

If you do read the OP you'll notice that not only is the premise that dogs terrorize criminals but implies that the use of more dogs would somehow help reduce shootings. I guess that would be done by sicking dogs onto people instead of shooting them? Sicking dogs onto suspects really isnt any different than just beating up suspects instead of killing them. So the big solution is that beating suspects is better than killing them. I would hate to be a suspect either way.

This also points towards vetting innocent citizens by using dogs to search them for firearms. And I dont care if you find it ridiculous, what is wrong is wrong. ANd is wrong to treat Americans citizens as if they already committed a crime without a care about due process.

Yea,, Well they tried chicken feathers to tickle criminal into submission, but someone complained that it was unfair to the chickens....

Oh one other thing,, nothing is more fun than watching a police dog chew the crap outta someone who has stolen a car, Ran from the police at high speed, endangered hundreds on innocent bystanders, and only gave up after crashing said stolen car and then being non compliant.

Well,, Maybe not as fun as watching someone get tasered, and falling like a mighty oak tree.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm... instead of stop and frisk now it'd be stop and sniff. Haha can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So during a time where we're having a problem with police officers' discretion you want to add more police officers with worse discretion? In what universe is this a solution to racial bias in discretionary violence?



So innocent, unarmed people should be bitten by dogs, because that's justice?
Click to expand...

Virtually none of these people are innocent so that's not a problem
 
americanwoman said:
Hmmmm... instead of stop and frisk now it'd be stop and sniff. Haha can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea actually, train dogs to hit on drugs, then everytime a dog alerts on a passing citizen, instant PC for s search. No racial profiling since dogs aren't racist
 
Casper said:
I believe in a balanced defense, I have three dogs and more than enough guns. Most criminals will avoid homes with dogs because they make a lot of noise and many can take care of themselves and their property, there are far easier targets for them.
Click to expand...

I have a 110 pound Akita. People with bad intentions are more polite when there is a big dog present.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Using dogs reminds me of totalitarian behavior. And well you are obviously saying that the government should be terrifying people to stop them from committing crimes. So no that is not a realistic option unless you consider a North Korea like government a realistic option. What are you going say next? That if you have nothing to hide dont worry about the loss of your rights?
Click to expand...

So it's an emotional issue for you. I can understand that. I can't relate with it but that is why I support the 2nd Amendment, to prevent tyranny and to protect my rights.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Virtually none of these people are innocent so that's not a problem
Click to expand...

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?

EMNofSeattle said:
Not a bad idea actually, train dogs to hit on drugs, then everytime a dog alerts on a passing citizen, instant PC for s search. No racial profiling since dogs aren't racist
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Dogs don't need to be, and should not be, "sicked" or sicced on to anyone, but they can definitely tell us when someone has a gun. The shooter might be able to hide the gun from a human being, but not from a dog's nose.
Click to expand...
Hmm sicced..thanx.

And what circumstance warrants using dogs to sniff out a firearm?
 
NonoBadDog said:
So it's an emotional issue for you. I can understand that. I can't relate with it but that is why I support the 2nd Amendment, to prevent tyranny and to protect my rights.
Click to expand...

No not emotional FFS, just stating that freedom doesnt ring so loud when American citizens are subjected to having dogs sicced on them or searched using dogs.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Your making a couple of big assumptions here. One, that the civillian is innocent; two, that the dogs will be "sicced" on suspects when often times their intimidation factor is just as good; and three, that dogs have no purpose in law enforcement other than to "terrorize"

Dogs have been proven to have an effect in deterring crime.
Click to expand...

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."
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Not a bad idea actually, train dogs to hit on drugs, then everytime a dog alerts on a passing citizen, instant PC for s search. No racial profiling since dogs aren't racist
Click to expand...

I had a rescued Lab mixed dog that would attack any black person for no reason. I had to be very careful with her when my black friends came over.

Don't kid yourself.
 
How about charging any police officer $10 every time he gets his gun out.

Just so they might stop and pause to think about it a little.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yea and the premise of this thread is the government using more dogs to terrorize people, so they wont commit crimes. Perhaps you should reread the OP?

If you do read the OP you'll notice that not only is the premise that dogs terrorize criminals but implies that the use of more dogs would somehow help reduce shootings. I guess that would be done by sicking dogs onto people instead of shooting them? Sicking dogs onto suspects really isnt any different than just beating up suspects instead of killing them. So the big solution is that beating suspects is better than killing them. I would hate to be a suspect either way.

This also points towards vetting innocent citizens by using dogs to search them for firearms. And I dont care if you find it ridiculous, what is wrong is wrong. ANd is wrong to treat Americans citizens as if they already committed a crime without a care about due process.
Click to expand...

Lmao! Flying off the handle ignoring what the actual purpose is. And really...ignoring what the entire point is.

A non compliant suspect is DANGEROUS! Period. Using a dog isn't "terrorizing" am American citizen and that is a LUDICROUS assertion. You tell me what the hell YOU would do if you are facing an individual who has completely ignored EVERY order you have given them? You are the kind of person who just wants to bawl and cry because woah is the suspect for ignoring every order. They have the opportunity to surrender. IF they felt so compelled they are in the right, they could fight it in court. But you seem to think it is ok for them to duke it out with cops out in the streets hm?

So again. This isn't about "terrorizing" citizens. That is no different than you crying about police "terrorizing" a citizen by threatening to taze them. The difference? A dog might not actually have to be used because people respect the bark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the court. You realize officers are not the court and that they arrest on probable cause right? There is a reason you aren't convicted as soon as an officer arrests you. The police officer is NOT the prosecution. Maybe you need to relearn how he justice system works?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tim the plumber said:
How about charging any police officer $10 every time he gets his gun out.

Just so they might stop and pause to think about it a little.
Click to expand...

Well if we are going that route...people could try fighting the officers in court...you know...rather than in public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RetiredUSN said:
I had a rescued Lab mixed dog that would attack any black person for no reason. I had to be very careful with her when my black friends came over.

Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is fair to say that dogs are racist. All Baylor is who is "dangerous" and what that really means is people who are different. They see people who are outside of the norm who are different and that in their mind is dangerous. My best friends dog hates me and all other white people. But that can be broken with simple exposure. Police dogs would not be acting like that. The training that they undergo would stop that. Especially given that the dogs are not trained on a specific race of people. They will bite you just as fast as they will bite me or Shaquille O'Neil or Jackie Chan.

Ps

Shaq is a police officer if you didn't know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
A ridiculous statement that doesn't address the situation. Just some broad brush statements that complain about some isolated incidents and compare government workers to authoritarian regimes. Thanks for addressing the topic.


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

Obviously I touched a nerve. You asked, I answered.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original question? It sounded like you were wondering whether having more police dogs interacting with certain parts of the general public.

I guess if that is the image you're projecting, maybe you don't like the image?
 
blackjack50 said:
I don't think it is fair to say that dogs are racist. All Baylor is who is "dangerous" and what that really means is people who are different. They see people who are outside of the norm who are different and that in their mind is dangerous. My best friends dog hates me and all other white people. But that can be broken with simple exposure. Police dogs would not be acting like that. The training that they undergo would stop that. Especially given that the dogs are not trained on a specific race of people. They will bite you just as fast as they will bite me or Shaquille O'Neil or Jackie Chan.

Ps

Shaq is a police officer if you didn't know.


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

I am not saying that my dog was a racist per se....

She was found chained up and abused in a black neighborhood by the SPCA.
 
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...

before reading through the thread...I am going to say yes, I like the idea, I can most certainly see the merits

now I will see if people talk me into it or out of it

:thumbs:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Obviously I touched a nerve. You asked, I answered.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original question? It sounded like you were wondering whether having more police dogs interacting with certain parts of the general public.

I guess if that is the image you're projecting, maybe you don't like the image?
Click to expand...

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
 
I think after reading through the thread that I still like the idea immensely but then I see animals as equal to humans. I view them as intelligent entities worthy of respect, care and admiration.

They are used during war. They understand pack mentality. They understand threat and need to make a target neutral.

I vote yes

again
 
_Sal said:
before reading through the thread...I am going to say yes, I like the idea, I can most certainly see the merits

now I will see if people talk me into it or out of it

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

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
 
RetiredUSN said:
I am not saying that my dog was a racist per se....

She was found chained up and abused in a black neighborhood by the SPCA.
Click to expand...

Oh. I understand. It is a learned behavior for sure. I have a friend who was a dog handler in the South African army. He said that the guys who were teaching them...they took clothes from the black Africans and would put the dogs in sacks and beat them. And low and behold the dogs hated all black Africans. It is a learned behavior in dogs for them to hate someone of w difference race. It might partially be lack of exposure, but most are just responding the way they learned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom