Anonymous #1 20w

Cops historically use way more force than necessary, never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, or the ATF what their views on animal cruelty are

5

Anonymous #1 20w

Idk why they aren't issued dog spray though, seems intentionally cruel

4

Anonymous #2 20w

Well yes but my point is that we tend to assume that shooting a dog at all is unjustified when there are a ton of cases where it's not

6

Anonymous #2 20w

Dogs can be and are trained to attack people physically messing with their owners, and that tends to look pretty similar to an arrest. This is why there should be non lethal deterrent options available, such as dog spray. I'm unsure of the efficacy of spray vs gun for dogs in particular, but I know for bears spray is more effective than firearms in an attack so I'd assume that same logic holds over for a dog.

3

Anonymous #1 20w

If my assumption is true, and spray is more effective than a firearm, then this is beneficial for both parties. Dog lives, cop is at lower risk.

1

Anonymous #1 20w

you would be incorrect to assume i believe none of those dogs are dangerous and i find it weird that you jumped to that extreme

1

Anonymous OP 20w

No, they’re right. I’m in vet med and studying masters in animal behavior. People will train dogs to attack, they attack cops while owner is getting arrested, cops k!ll dogs. It’s probably a larger portion of the daily deaths than you think anyway. They’re not outrageous for considering it as a logical part of the equation. The rest of those deaths tho could be innocent and definitely that’s worth being upset about. I mean, all of them are worth being upset about.

1

Anonymous #3 20w

Owner responsibility is to protect and advocate for their pets and if they not only control their pets’ behavior for their own safety but also advocate for the wrong behavior to be shown, the owner is failing that dog. You want to set your dog up for success and they would be setting them up for disaster and death. It’s sad bc the dogs don’t know better and don’t deserve that. But the cops also can’t allow themselves to be mauled.

1

Anonymous #3 20w

****don’t control pet behavior, sorry

1

Anonymous #3 20w

i'm gonna give you an opportunity to reread my comment and the comment it is replying to to come to the correct interpretation of what i said instead of whatever you landed at

1

Anonymous OP 20w

I really don't get what you're saying. Is it that dogs don't attack, that cops aren't at serious risk of this, or that the two examples I gave are both not risky enough to warrant shooting? Tasers tend to be just as lethal as bullets on dogs, if you want to stop this issue then give the cops something effective to stop the attack that doesn't kill the dog.

3

Anonymous #1 20w

i said you'd be incorrect to assume that i don't think any of those 10k dogs are dangerous. #3 said "no, they're right" insinuating that you're right to assume that's what i meant, which is silly and a clear indicator they were reading to respond, not reading to understand i never said dogs don't attack - that's absurd. i never said cops aren't at risk - that's absurd. i never addressed your examples because there's no need - i know that dogs can be dangerous and don't need a hypothetical

0

Anonymous #1 20w

what exactly are you not getting? i think you're confusing yourself with your strawmanning tbh

0

Anonymous OP 20w

I guess I was confused by the lack of punctuation, still I don't see what we're arguing if we agree on that. Do you not believe that dog spray would be an effective solution? If not, what's the flaw that I'm missing?

3

Anonymous #1 20w

see this is what i mean. nothing i said would even remotely suggest i oppose using sprays or gels, and i would enthusiastically support a transition towards those in any department. you've thoroughly confused yourself and manufactured a discussion/disagreement that never existed

0

Anonymous OP 20w

I assume because your post is completely hostile to the individual police officers without even addressing the fact that they aren't the ones at fault, it's their procedure. You can be supportive all you want of what I believe to be effective solutions but before I proposed them all you wanted was to victim blame.

2

Anonymous #1 20w

your assumption is still wrong and baseless. me being frustrated with cowardly, trigger happy police has nothing to do with whether or not i support less lethal alternatives and only a dunce would think so. these are entirely independent thoughts and you're reaching because you wanted an argument from the jump; hence why you've been arguing with ghosts for hours

0

Anonymous #1 20w

it's stupid to say that's "their procedure" when there is no universal/nationwide guidance anyway. plus no policy says to immediately open fire at a dog the moment you feel threatened, which is the incident this post references. the LAPD policy on discharging firearms lays out around 10 alternatives officers may use instead - from kicking to tasers to beanbag guns etc. you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. you just want to argue

0

Anonymous #1 20w

next time spare the assumptions and ask clarifying questions your approach to disagreement is insufferable and frankly useless. you've accomplished nothing but waste your own time and energy arguing against shit nobody was arguing for, and making incorrect assumptions left and right

0

Anonymous #1 20w

and before you somehow end up asking if i'm okay with sprays again: yes, officers should have alternatives (not limited to sprays btw) that are safer for them and the public. nobody was against this at any point in this discussion are we on the same page?

0

Anonymous OP 20w

Blaming them for using the most effective method of stopping the threat to themself as quick as possible is where you go against police procedure nationwide. A spray is also easy enough to add to an average police toolkit, adding an entire force continuum (noise + multiple sprays) specifically engineered to dogs is tough and would likely be better suited to an animal control department.

1

Anonymous OP 20w

Other than those two I'm pretty much on the same page, I don't blame these guys for doing what they've been drilled for months to thinking is the most just solution. I just think there are better alternatives that would solve the issue

1

Anonymous #1 20w

the most effective way for an officer to stop anybody or any animal from doing anything is killing them. that being the most effective absolutely Does Not make it the correct, advisable, or ethical decision and this is a silly idea "what these guys have been drilled to do" again no universal training and LAPD specifically are not "drilled" to immediately open fire when feeling scared of a dog, and many alternatives are given

-1