Camera PV 2007 » Digital Camera » Police K-9's = What am I missing here?
Police K-9's = What am I missing here?
Question:
> No, what I meant was could a cop defend > a shooting by arguing, eg, that shooting > was the most effective option available >[some important qualifications snipped]
LynnK replies: :I see. No, that isn’t a viable justfication. :Most effective isn’t the question. The use of :deadly force is only justified by being the only 
ption available. All other levels of force :must be nonfeasible. I guess the issue I was getting at was whether a gun could ever be considered non-deadly force, eg when the cop had an easy, dink shot at, say, a suspect’s leg. It’s more curiosity than anything else, mind you. And I’m rooting that the answer will remain "no", even though even I could see why someone might think that cops OUGHT to be able to do this. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
>You are a real ace at misreading everything. But, hey, who ever said that white >suburban >Republicans were literate?
Racist babble does nothing constructive. Profiling a correspondant, or any individual, based on race or political afflitation is inconsistant with Liberatrian idealogoy. Same sort of thinking which puts legal pressure on the APBT. . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->JohnR >Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
> No, what I meant was could a cop defend > a shooting by arguing, eg, that shooting > was the most effective option available
I see. No, that isn’t a viable justfication. Most effective isn’t the question. The use of deadly force is only justified by being the only option available. All other levels of force must be nonfeasible. Lynn K.
Response:
Mark Kreutzfeld writes:
:Racist babble does nothing constructive. :Profiling a correspondant, or any :individual, based on race or political :afflitation is inconsistant with Liberatrian :idealogoy. Same sort of thinking which :puts legal pressure on the APBT. There’s a fine line between payback and sinking to someone’s level. I know Marc Kortlander from way back. I meant to stick a taste of his own profilist mentality back into his fat, self-satisfied face. But perhaps I DID cross the line in the heat of the moment. On the other hand, the LP is way too white, way too male, way too suburban and way too professional class itself, largely because LPers have been too eager to look "respectable" to all the wrong people, and apparently too afraid to get to know the people who get kicked in the jaw by the state a lot more frequently than white suburban Republicans and capital ‘L’ Libertarians do. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
Marc Kortlander writes:
:er, that is not what you said, you said :evading apprehension, when a suspect :EVADES apprehension he is at risk of :being injured by a law enforcement agent :who is taking whatever steps necessary :to make apprehension. Yes, but there is such thing as using excessive force. And if these Prince Georges County K9 are out of control, then you can make the case that their use amounts to excessive force. :To make it clear for you, if a law :enforcement person with a dog makes a :lawful order for a suspect to stop and :the suspect attempts to evade the order :to stop and the officer releases a dog to :effect the apprehension of a suspect that :suspect has waived any right to be safe :from physical harm that the dog might :do to the suspect in effecting the suspects :apprehension. No. You are wrong. There are limits to how much physical harms the cops can do even to those evading arrest. :Suspects rights once they are in :custody is a different issue, do not :try obfuscation by merging these two :separate issues. I didn’t mean to merge the issues, but I do see that my wording made it sound that way. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
> So I guess I can see > why review boards operate under the > presumption that any shot fired was > shot with the willingness to kill. But is > that presumption indefeasible?
LynnK replies: :If you mean, is there ever a justification :for a cop to have to kill someone, that’s :pretty well defined by law. No, what I meant was could a cop defend a shooting by arguing, eg, that shooting was the most effective option available AND that he knew that, from his vantage, he could shoot w/o endangering the life of the suspect or any bystanders? That is, could the cop, from a legal point of view, rebut the presumption that he was willing to kill? JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
state. Fortunately, we’re still >a long way from being a police state >despite the best efforts of people >like you who "don’t give a rat’s ass" >about the rights of the accused.
For some, it might take getting accused of a crime to apprieciate liberty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->JohnR >Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
>But this is where the issue of the K9 >dog arises, oh inattentive one. The guy >lost enough blood to require hospitalization >and surgery.
Marc Kortlander rplies: :if the guy would submit, he, 1. would not :have been attacked or 2. after being :attacked he would ‘ve receive medical :attention. it all boils down to you :supporting some ones right to ignore :lawful police orders. Bullshit. The guy had no legal right to resist arrest and, if even half of what is alleged about him is true, he had no moral right, either. But that does NOT automatically entail that the police have a right to sic a dog on him that ends up putting him in surgery with a "significant loss of blood". :In the situation I believe you are alluding :to a fugitive barricaded himself in an :apartment and fired shots at police. :He got what he deserved, he brought :all his problems onto himself and only :liberloons like you try to defend his "rights". You are a real ace at misreading everything. But, hey, who ever said that white suburban Republicans were literate? In the hostage case, my objection was (a) that the DOG didn;t get what it deserved, but got what any halfway rational person would expect it would get: shot; (b) that this could have ended even worse for the hostages; and (c) that this tactic, which was in effect "sanctified" by the the invocation of this case in defense of the screwy "police dogs – and ONLY police dogs – are people, too" law, could, in OTHER cases, lead to serious rights violations. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
>You claimed that the suspect "gave up >his rights". I pointed out for edification >of knuckle-draggers like yourself that >he still had fights. Strive to achieve the >intellect of a moderately bright 12 year old.
Marc Kortlander: :look nit wit, you are one who cannot :focus upon one issue without confusing :it with another. Modulo the typo that I corrected in another post, my point was a simple refutation of your claim. No confusion on THIS side of the aisle. :That is obfuscation, [blah blah blah] If it’s too difficult for you to follow, just say so. But it’s definitely NOT obfuscation to point out that your sweeping claim was incorrect, and showing precisely in WHAT WAY it was incorrect. When suspects lose all rights upon apprehension, what you have is a police state. Fortunately, we’re still a long way from being a police state despite the best efforts of people like you who "don’t give a rat’s ass" about the rights of the accused. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
:I pointed out for edification f knuckle-draggers like yourself that :he still had fights. Yeah, he had those, too. but he also still had rights. Egad! JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
jbaker3 writes:
:Thats why the guy didn’t get shot! :The constitution does protect the :accused, but when they have em dead :to rights come on. Ummm, I’m sure you sincerely meant whatever it is that you meant. :Besides, the fact that we are guaranteed :those protections means nothing :when the governmant pays it little heed :anyway Yes, which is sorta MY point. Whatever. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
jbaker3 writes:
:No they haven’t stunk. Your just too :blinded by your liberalism to get the :point. Uh oh, has some liberal gotten hold of my password? Hmmmmmm. Nope. You quoted my libertarian post accurately. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
> And if > cops just want to incapacitate someone, > I WOULD prefer them to use just about > anything BUT a gun.
That’s exactly what the ladder of force and review boards are about. If a weapon is fired, you damn well have to prove that the lower levels of force, chemical spray/K9 if available/baton, were not sufficient force for the situation. That’s really what the term "excess force" means – the choice of a method or tool higher on the ladder than the minimum necessary to control the situation. > So I guess I can see > why review boards operate under the > presumption that any shot fired was > shot with the willingness to kill. But is > that presumption indefeasible?
If you mean, is there ever a justification for a cop to have to kill someone, that’s pretty well defined by law. Lynn K.
Response:
No they haven’t stunk. Your just too blinded by your liberalism to get the point. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> jb writes: > :I hope there are some people making > :a stink in the defense of police dogs > :everywhere! > I don’t know about eveywhere, but most > of the defenses of police dogs in this > NG have indeed stunk. So take another > bite out of your pacifier and go to bed. > JohnR > Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
>:he gave up his rights when he >:resisted a lawful police order to stop.
I replied: >No, no, no, no. It would still have been >unlawful to shoot him.
JohnDoe (aka Marc Kortlander) replies: :where did shooting come into play??? :stay focused! You claimed that the suspect "gave up his rights". I pointed out for edification of knuckle-draggers like yourself that he still had fights. Strive to achieve the intellect of a moderately bright 12 year old. :a police officer has a right to stop and :detain anyone for probable cause. a police fficer can effect force to enable this :detainment. use of a dog to effect a stop f a person is legal. It’s up for review, you nutball Christy Whitman fan, you. As I said elsewhere, this guy is NOT likely to become any civil libertarian group’s cause celebre. :use of deadly force is only permitted :when the officer believes life is in :imminent danger. There is no such thing :as warning shots or shooting to disable But this is where the issue of the K9 dog arises, oh inattentive one. The guy lost enough blood to require hospitalization and surgery. The county in question, a fairly nazified county that has (oh, the irony!) banned Pit Bulls as "dangerous dogs" has a history of K9 dog maulings. So, under such circumstances, was this deadly force? :you need to understand what you are :talking about. And the next time you do will be the first. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
> Say what? By that logic, shooting someone > in the leg is the same as shooting them in > the face.
Actually, it is exactly the same from the viewpoint of justification and a review board. Cops are taught never to draw a weapon they’re not willing to fire, and the death of another human being is the potential result of any shot fired. You don’t shoot to wing someone. So a review board’s purpose is to judge whether the use of the weapon was necessary and warranted at all, regardless of where the bullet entered the body. Review of any incident where a K9 makes contact with a subject seems to me to be a good practice, if only to have a determination made prior to any potential liability claims. Lynn K.
Response:
LynnK writes:
:Actually, it is exactly the same from :the viewpoint of justification and a :review board. Cops are taught never :to draw a weapon they’re not willing :to fire, and the death of another human :being is the potential result of any shot :fired. You don’t shoot to wing someone. Well, I’m all in favor of cops, and anyone else who draws a gun, being made to realize that any shot MIGHT kill someone. And if cops just want to incapacitate someone, I WOULD prefer them to use just about anything BUT a gun. So I guess I can see why review boards operate under the presumption that any shot fired was shot with the willingness to kill. But is that presumption indefeasible? [snip] :Review of any incident where a K9 :makes contact with a subject seems :to me to be a good practice, if only :to have a determination made prior :to any potential liability claims. Ah. Say no more! Seriously, I think it’s good practice as well. And I don’t think that anything should be read into it. While I’m curious to know just how significant the suspect’s "significant loss of blood" was, my basic feeling is the same as the more "law-and- order"-oriented posters to this thread: the suspect put HIMSELF into harm’s way. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
JohnDoe writes:
:he gave up his rights when he :resisted a lawful police order to stop. No, no, no, no. It would still have been unlawful to shoot him. [snip] :not too many people, contrary to what :the media wants you to believe, gives a :rats ass about criminals rights True. Which is why it is fortunate that the Constitution "gives a rat’s ass" about the rights of the ACCUSED. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
Thats why the guy didn’t get shot! The constitution does protect the accused, but when they have em dead to rights come on. Besides, the fact that we are guaranteed those protections means nothing when the governmant pays it little heed anyway – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> JohnDoe writes: > :he gave up his rights when he > :resisted a lawful police order to stop. > No, no, no, no. It would still have been > unlawful to shoot him. > [snip] > :not too many people, contrary to what > :the media wants you to believe, gives a > :rats ass about criminals rights > True. Which is why it is fortunate that > the Constitution "gives a rat’s ass" > about the rights of the ACCUSED. > JohnR > Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
> But depending on HOW > significant the significant blood loss was, > there may be an issue of excessive force > here.
LynnK replies: :I don’t think so. The decision to use a :particular weapon is the issue of excessive :force, not the result of it’s use. Say what? By that logic, shooting someone in the leg is the same as shooting them in the face. Since the guy was the target of the K9, it is reasonable to wonder whether the handler could have reasonably suspected that the dog would seriously injure the guy. But I still don’t think that this particular case is worth getting all worked up over. If anything, the story could have been planted in order to create the possibly quite erroneous impression that this guy’s case is typical of the cases being litigated. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
Ken writes:
:But if he didn’t steal cars, commit ver 13 robberies and fight police fficers, he wouldn’t have been bitten. :I think he gives up his "rights" when he :violates parole and leads officers on high :speed chases. he certainly gives up SOME rights. Whether he gives up the right not to be mauled by a K9 dog can be sorted out by the courts when and if it comes to that. But I didn’t see any indication in the article of any groundswell of sorrow over THIS particular guy’s plight. Unless his condition is considerably more serious than indicated so far, I think we can all safely forget about him. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
jb writes:
:I hope there are some people making :a stink in the defense of police dogs :everywhere! I don’t know about eveywhere, but most of the defenses of police dogs in this NG have indeed stunk. So take another bite out of your pacifier and go to bed. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
I hope there are some people making a stink in the defense of police dogs everywhere! If more people felt the way you guys do, and would reflect that in the way they live (and vote) we could seriously reduce crime in this country(U.S.). Although i don’t think that more reviews are what is needed, on the contrary, if there where less reviews and fewer lawsuits, it would send a message "Enough! Your criminal activities are no longer going to be tolerated.Period!" If you ask me, That officer and her dog deserve a big fat ‘at a boy!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive:yes > Suspect Bitten by Pr. George’s Police Dog > Officials Say Man Fought Officers > By Ruben Castaneda > Washington Post Staff Writer > Friday, June 11, 1999; Page B01 > An unarmed robbery suspect who tried to fight with, then > run away from officers was severely bitten on both legs > yesterday after a Prince George’s County police canine > officer sent her dog after him, officials said. > The 30-year-old suspect was not immediately identified > and had not been charged early last evening. He suffered > significant blood loss from a bite into an artery in his > leg and was in serious but stable condition at Prince > George’s Hospital Center last night, hospital officials > said. > The alleged robber also suffered severe to moderate > bites on his lower legs, said Richard S. Kennedy, vice > president of the hospital, and emergency room doctors > were evaluating whether the man needed surgery. > Prince George’s County police refused to identify either > the dog handler or the dog. > The incident comes three weeks after Police Chief John > S. Farrell and County Executive Wayne K. Curry (D) > announced plans to reduce the number of dog bite > injuries inflicted by the county’s police dogs and as > the department’s 23-member canine corps is under federal > scrutiny. > The reforms include increased supervision and review of > officers and a dramatic shift in the way police dogs are > trained. Since the inception of the unit nearly 40 years > ago, county police dogs have been trained to catch > suspects by biting them in the arm, officials said, a > technique used by most East Coast police agencies. > Curry and Farrell announced last month that the > department is shifting to the "bark and hold" approach, > in which the canines are trained to keep suspects at bay > by barking and only bite if the suspect tries to flee or > attack. The dogs are to be retrained beginning later > this summer. West Coast agencies that employ the bark > and hold approach also limit the use of their police > dogs on armed suspects. > County police dogs have bitten hundreds of people in > recent years, though police officials have refused to > say exactly how many biting incidents the canines have > been involved in. > The Washington Post reported in April that at least 13 > civil suits alleging excessive force by members of the > county’s canine unit are pending. The Post also reported > that the FBI is investigating whether the unit has > engaged in a pattern of brutality. > Authorities said yesterday’s incident will be reviewed > by a team of police commanders from the special > operations division, which oversees the canine unit, > within 72 hours, in accordance with reforms announced by > Farrell and Curry. > That review will include interviews with the canine > officer, other officers and supervisors at the scene, > and civilian witnesses, according to Farrell’s mandate. > In addition to Prince George’s officers, Montgomery > County police and Maryland State Police participated in > the pursuit and capture of the suspect. > Prince George’s police said the man who was bitten is a > suspect in as many as 10 robberies in Montgomery since > Saturday. Officials said he is also a suspect in as many > as three robberies in Prince George’s. > The man recently was arrested on robbery charges in > Florida and was returned to Montgomery because the > Florida arrest violated his parole in Montgomery, law > enforcement sources said. The man was released June 2, > sources said. > Police said that yesterday’s incident began about 11:30 > a.m. when the suspect grabbed a clerk at the Montgomery > Ward store in the Capital Plaza in Landover Hills and > tried to rob her or the cash register. > The clerk grappled her way free, and police were called > and set up a cordon around the plaza, said Prince > George’s police spokesman Lt. Andy Ellis. > Police did not catch the suspect, who was seen about 30 > minutes later, at a Greenbelt gas station, Ellis said. > There, police said, the suspect leaned over the counter, > grabbed cash from an opened cash register, ran to the > stolen red Dodge truck he was driving and sped away. > Maryland state police chased the suspect but lost him, > officials said. By then, state police and officers from > Prince George’s and Montgomery also were looking for > him. Officers in marked cruisers spotted the suspect > driving west on New Hampshire Avenue and trailed him, > Ellis said. > He said state police, Prince George’s and Montgomery > officers set up a roadblock at New Hampshire Avenue and > Oakview Road, just inside Montgomery. > When the suspect reached the roadblock, according to > Ellis, he stopped the truck, and police ordered him to > surrender. But the suspect fought with officers, > slugging and kicking them, before trying to run away, > Ellis said. > At that point, the canine officer, who had heard of the > chase on her police radio and responded to assist, > released the canine, officials said. > You can view this article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-06/11/157l-061199-id… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > What am I missing? This career Felon robs people, flees, beats and kicks > police officers, violates parole, and people are complaining because a > police dog bites him? He’s a piece of shit. What did the dog/officer do > wrong? > (ken) > — > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><><><><> > See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at: > http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/ > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><><><><>
Response:
> But depending on HOW > significant the significant blood loss was, > there may be an issue of excessive force > here.
I don’t think so. The decision to use a particular weapon is the issue of excessive force, not the result of it’s use. For example, the decision to draw & fire a gun, which may result in a ricochet. This certainly sounds like a case where the use of a K9 was justified, but a standard review of all bites is probably a very good idea. Lynn K.
Response:
Ken writes:
:What am I missing? This career Felon :robs people, flees, beats and kicks police fficers, violates parole, and people are :complaining because a police dog bites him? :He’s a piece of shit. What did the dog/officer :do wrong? I don’t think you would have heard anything about it if it weren’t for those hundreds of other bite incidents, 13 civil suits and the FBI investigation. But depending on HOW significant the significant blood loss was, there may be an issue of excessive force here. But I wouldn’t expect this particular guy to become the poster child for K9 brutality victims. JohnR Pit Bull Libertarian
Response:
More than one way to skin a cat, Ken. If taught and executed properly, a bark and hold can be just as effective and even more versatile than a bite. Like I said in the other thread: Over zealous K9 officers and their dogs who abuse the bite privilege run the risk of losing that privilege. Mike.
Response:
> The only problem is — Prince George’s County, Maryland plans to > "retrain" their dogs to bark & hold, as a result of lawsuits.
Training a bark & hold does NOT mean that the dog does not know how to bite on command. I have my doubts about the potential success of the Prince George’s retraining, but don’t see it as an either/or situation for a dog that is initially trained to do both. Bark & hold is a preferable lower level response, but doesn’t mean that a bite isn’t availble when needed. Lynn K.
Response:
There is no such thing as a bark and hold. It is called bark and guard. How can a dog bark and hold onto the subject if he doesn’t bite him. The bark and guard is generally used after the dog was called out or he was called to stop his attack. Any good K9 officer would issue a warning before release to limit liability. Also any good K9 trainer would not only train a dog to attack the arms but any part off the body he comes to first. And whenever a dog shows the tendency to attack heads or face I give him a firm correction so he learns that is not an acceptable place for attack. Ken is right there is no purpose of having dogs if everyone knows the dogs will not bite. Why should the badguy stop if there is no threat of personal injury. — "If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember what you have said." Abraham Lincoln Crimson K-9
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive:yes > As the article is stated, and from the information given, I don’t > perceive that the dog & Officer acted inappropriately…. > Fleeing felons aren’t prepared to be "dog-bitten", and they may try to > run. > Perhaps educating the public about how to respond when confronted with a > patrol-dog. Word has a way of getting around. > Mag’ > The only problem is — Prince George’s County, Maryland plans to > "retrain" their dogs to bark & hold, as a result of lawsuits. > You might as well not even have a K-9 force if that’s the case, unless > you use the dogs exclusively for searches. > (ken) > — > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><><><><> > See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at: > http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/ > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><><><><>
Response:
Or any kind of priviledge, K-9 or otherwise. Over-zealous officers of the law can and do present just as much as a danger as the criminals whom they are sworn to "protect" the public from. Anytime you give power to a government agency, such as the local police, you run the risk that the agents will abuse the power. It is human nature, regretfully.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->More than one way to skin a cat, Ken. If taught and executed properly, a >bark and hold can be just as effective and even more versatile than a bite. >Like I said in the other thread: Over zealous K9 officers and their dogs >who abuse the bite privilege run the risk of losing that privilege. >Mike.
Response:
I agree Mark. It is a shame that the K9’s that are well trained and properly utilized will suffer the fate of their less trained and poorly utilized counterparts. It is the competent K9 officers that should be the most upset about the retraining and the bias. After all, a properly used police K9 can and will decrease the amount of direct contact the police officer has with the suspect – which is sometimes safer for everybody involved. Mike.