If i'm bit by a police dog, why isn't that "officer" held accountable for accesive force?

Question

A police dog is treated like any other officer for acts commited against him, why not by him?

so by many of your arguments here, If I am shot by a cop, or beaten by a cop, i deserve it??????


If I (im using it subjectively, ive never had an encounter with a police dog) stop, as I am told, while a police dog is loose, and it bites, me , why isn't that 'officer' held to an officers standards?

yes, i meant excessive force. It's almost 3am and I'm tired. Did you really not understand that is what I meant, or is that a pathetic attempt to try to feel more intelligent than someone else?

-=---

The basic premise of my question, is to question why someone is charged with assaulting a police officer if they were to hit the dog, but if the dog does something a police officer couldn't do, why is it not the same?

If someone is running from a police officer, and the person stops and puts up his hands, the officer can not start beating him with a stick, or shoot him. If someone is running from a police dog and then they stop, and put up their hands, the dog is still allowed to attack them. why?

Answer 1

As a K-9 handler myself I can say " I " myself am held accountable for my dog and his actions. Consider a dog a tool. Although he is also my partner, friend, and companion, he is an extension of my authority. He, like any other piece of equipment on my belt, is on a use of force continuum. What does that mean you ask? It's simple...

An Officer may use force that which is reasonable to affect an arrest. The use of force continuum begins with Officer presence and ends with deadly force. In between there comes the use of a K-9 dog. Every agency has this as protocol. As for my agency specifically: If the use of force I must perform to affect an arrest requires me to use a baton I have met the criteria to use my K-9 as well.

Keep in mind an Officer must be able to articulate why such force is needed. An Officer may use 1 stage higher than his suspect to affect such arrest.

For example: If you pull out a knife as I attempt to arrest you I have justification to end your life with any means. By my firearm, my squad car, or any means to protect myself from great bodily harm. If all a suspect does is try to punch me then I can use impact weapons. That is where an officer can get caught up in excessive use of force cases.

.... oh and for the guy below who is damn sure they can't chase.... yes they sure can... and trained to do so on command.

Answer 2

Normally, before the officer releases the dog he will give a verbal warning. This releases him and the dog from liability. Because you have failed to comply with the verbal commands given up to this point, the officer is justified in releasing the dog. If, after he releases the dog, you decide to comply then you are going to have to bear the brunt of the dog until the officer gets there to heal the dog off of you. This is not considered excessive force unless he doesn't stop the dog after you become compliant.

You ask the question about acts committed by the dog. If the dog acts out and say bites someone for no reason, that is all recorded. I cannot tell you what the thresholds are, but after so many random acts there has to be ramifications. The liabilities of an uncontrollable attack dog would be too much for any police force. Just like a human officer, K9 officers have records.

Answer 3

I strongly suggest you appraise yourself of the discussions between the NSDAP and Palestine in the mid 30's, where the Palestinians were prepared to pass land to the German Jews so they could all be deported there. As Palestine was an English Administered area at that time, an overhang from WW1, the UK put a firm stop to all those discussions. How desperately ironic that the very land which the Palestinians were offering in '35 was the same land that in 1948 the recently formed UN forced the UK to give over and Israel was created. There is great confusion about the "Final solution to the Jewish question" much of what the public think they know and ill informed books trot out is actually incorrect. The holocaust happened obviously but if you study the NSDAP and it's leaders actions, read Mein Kampf, the holocaust only became the final solution because everything else had gone wrong for the Nazi's. Plan one, mid 30's - Send the German Jews, which was only around 500,000 people to Palestine - the UK stopped that. Plan two - 1939 until the loss of the war on Russian land - send all European Jews and various other groups they didn't want to Siberia. But of course, they didn't gain that ground to keep. By the time Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in mid 1942 most leading SS and Wehrmacht top brass and officers in the field understood that Germany would lose the war and were already looking for the best way that Germany could come to an agreement with the Russians and the rest of Europe. Although 'The Holocaust' as such went on until 1945, the main event was all over by 1943, A terrible time in history, but in the cold light of day, just another terrible time in history. Read about the Crusades, and various other acts pre-middle ages. Heydrich was not the first to think of "Nacht und Nebel" and the Nazi's certainly not the first to think of religious pogroms and mass annihilation of 'undesirables.

Answer 4

To answe rthe person above me aboutthe chasing YES THEY DO RELEASE DOGS when you are running and the dogs can chase you. The police officer gives you a verbal warning i'm going to release mydog come out with your hands up or get on the ground or whatever as long as you listen to what the police officer says do not resist and stay calm you won't be bit

Answer 5

If you are running would your rather be bitten than shot. They say "stop in the name of the law or I will shoot" What part of that don't you or anyone else get. The Officer is doing his job. at least he's not one that can be bribed. He is well trained to commands and if the officer can't be there at the moment the dogs catches you the officer dog is doing his job.

Answer 6

It depends on the situation. If provoked to do so, as in a crime, then no because a police dog is just doing his so called job. The dogs aren't used in all situations. But if not provoked then the department not the officer is most likely held responsible.

Answer 7

in 1996 a police dog was "released from duty" after biting a suspect that was already handcuffed. the suspect sued and was given a settlement of $350,000 by the city. so... police dogs acting out of line are in a way accountable for their actions.

Answer 8

Well since I work with dogs and sometimes police dogs, I'm fairly certain that if you were bitten by a police dog, you deserved it.

News flash, buddy. If you are doing crime, you'll eventually do the time. Quit passing the buck because you will get caught.

Answer 9

It awful hard to prove, especially if you were engaged in illegal activity. Police dogs are trained to attack if you don't fall to the ground in a submissive way. They just don't tell you that and enjoy seeing the dog have it's orgy of blood lust satiated at least once in a while.

Answer 10

If you get bit by a police dog, you deserve to be bit by a police dog. They are so highly trained that they will not bite without good reason.