…and this is a 
They shoot the dogs?
Category: Evil • Politics
Posted on: February 20, 2007 6:30 PM, by PZ Myers
SWAT teams training for drug raids casually shoot target dogs, so guess what they do on the real raids? Fascist scumbags. In anything other than a police state, you'd expect the law enforcers to be held to the highest possible standards of conduct; in the US, the police with the biggest guns are unrestrained by ordinary decency. Slaughtering family pets is what I'd expect of a psychopath.
(via Jim Lippard)
Comments
When the bad guys use dogs as weapons, I expect the police to practice disarming them. What's the problem here?
And I'm writing this with a pit bull laying on my lap.
Posted by: Grumpy | February 20, 2007 6:37 PM
Those stories are sickening. :
Handcuffing a 13 year old kid at gunpoint, shooting kids, and that awful story about them making fun of killing the two family dogs in front of the family?
wth?
Posted by: fred | February 20, 2007 6:39 PM
I'm writing this with a pit bull laying on my lap.
Pit bulls are for dumbasses.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 20, 2007 6:44 PM
I think I'm developing a taste for lutefisk.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 6:44 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 6:46 PM
Hence that particular extreme behavioural trait being given to the Angelus vampire character in Buffy. When do those "law enforcers" get ensouled then? Many of them probably believe they already have one, for all the good it apparently does them (ie none).
Posted by: SEF | February 20, 2007 6:52 PM
You know, every time someone around here follows or opens their statement with "What's the problem?", I can only visualize a great big 1000W neon "MORON" sign floating above their heads.
The problem isn't shooting dogs that attack them. The problem is shooting some random guy's dogs while the SWAT teams are taking a shortcut across his yard to get to their target. The problem is shooting a 13 year old over some damn tomatoes or something. The problem is breaking into someone's home and killing their pet then laughing about it when those people hadn't even done anything wrong. The problem is the lack of oversight and accountability that causes that kind of behavior. The problem is that the same kind of attitude that caused Abu Ghraib seems to be running around in our little drug war. Because god-damned everything is a war, isn't it? It's certainly worth letting police teams armed in the same way that some people arm their soldiers shoot 13 year old kids at point blank range over the amount of marijuana you'd roll a joint out of, or even better, over their kitchen potager, isn't it?
Christ. Shut up, man.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 6:57 PM
When all you have is a hammer, you begin to deny the existence of screws.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 7:01 PM
Additional:
What would you care to bet that problems like this are "handled internally", otherwise known as "giving vague verbal reprimands and not involving actual consequences"?
Armies and police groups tend to develop internal loyalties that eventually become more important than loyalties to outsiders, even the societies that they're supposed to protect. Same problem with politicians turning into aristocrats.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 7:08 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 7:08 PM
My politics can only be described as progressive, and I am for the most part a complete pacifist, but one thing I do believe about America is that as long as the police continue to carry guns every US citizen should have the right to defned themselves against them, using lethal force if necessary. Police are an army of bullies employed by the state for one thing and one thing only, protection of money and property. They're not there to "serve and protect" people, that's a bigger fairytale than any religion. Most police are class traitors and killers on power trips.
This article made me sick, the cruelty to animals is awful, but honestly I'm with Dustin when I say that it's even sicker how these people who are given such power over other humans feel they can use it to be cruel and violent towards them.
In New York City, on every police car bumper, there's a sticker that reads "1-800-COP-SHOT" - it's a hotline for contributing information about people who shoot and kill cops. There's even a reward involved if they get a conviction! Why isn't this sticker "1-800-MURDER1" instead, a hotline for murders of ALL people, not just cops. It's because the cops are a bunch of privilaged frat-boys with guns who love to hide behind their badges when they make a mistake. And the government always supports these "heroes."
Reminds me of that Juvenal quote (which yes, I learned via Alan Moore):
"...quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who will care for the caretakers?
I know in context it's about eunuchs or something, but still, the sentiment is there.
Posted by: darrell | February 20, 2007 7:10 PM
Well, I wouldn't bet against you. Even in the really publicized abuse cases, that's the way it seems to play out. That's the whole "lack of accountability" thing I was talking about. On the other hand I can't possibly imagine that any civil rights group or lawyer would stay away from a case where someone's kid was shot over the basil growing in the windowsill (and yet, I don't hear about those kinds of cases very often).
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 7:15 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 7:18 PM
@ GWW. You obviously know only what you read or hear in the mass media concerning pittbulls. I guess by your comment that Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Gen G. Patton, Micheal J. Fox and everybody else that owns or owned a pittbull is a dumbass.
It all depends on how you raise the dog, whether it'll be aggressive or friendly. Any way German Sheperds bite more people than any other dog breed.
Posted by: Rick | February 20, 2007 7:19 PM
Class traitors?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 7:29 PM
"...quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who will care for the caretakers?
The Coast Guard?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2007 7:31 PM
Darrell, I appreciate the agreement, but doubt very much that arming ourselves against the police is going to do anything but escalate those already bad episodes into something that gets featured on CNN.
The problem is completely social, this is the kind of behavior we'd expect to see in some place outside of the industrialized democracies and republics of the west. People like Grumpy up there talk through their asses about treating the government and its agents with some kind of deference that elevates them above the level of scrutiny.
Scrutiny and accountability are the things that elevate the police above the status of armed thugs, and they're only subjected to that scrutiny and accountability when they're employed by a government that has respect for the rights and welfare of its citizens, and we'll only have that when the public stops treating our elected officials like kings and military dictators and starts treating them as public servants who are sworn to uphold our rights and welfare.
I can say that because these kinds of things don't happen on the same scale in other western nations. Sure, Canada and the UK have these kinds of problems, but on a smaller scale. And then you can look at the Scandinavian countries, and there's less of a problem yet. In each of those cases, the populace are packing much less heat than the Americans, and they still have less abuse and less dysfunction.
The problem is clearly the electorate and their disregard for their own well-being, and all of this high-minded rhetoric and misinformation about drugs.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 7:32 PM
Just the most vicious way I can think to describe the fact that most police officers are lower or middle class, but they're employed solely to protect the wealth of the government and the very rich. Police officers sell themselves out, and they're not even paid that well, so presumably it must be for the power the job offers, power which they only tend to use to oppress those people who once shared their same class affiliation.
Class traitors.
Posted by: darrell | February 20, 2007 7:37 PM
I actually agree fully. When I said we have a right to defend ourselves, that doesn't mean that I don't eventually want to see America as a country of NO guns and NO lethal force. But as long as police can riddle a drunk driver with bullets on the night before his wedding, or shoot a guy for reaching for his wallet, I think Americans should be prepared to fight the bastards tooth and nail. They're America's worst and most powerful gang, and they have complete control of every neighborhood.
Posted by: darrell | February 20, 2007 7:41 PM
Um, no. I think the cops tend to put loyalty to their own over loyalty to the public, but there are lots of cops who mean well, and even the ones who don't care are usually bound by procedure to do at least a half-assed job of protecting people in general.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 7:42 PM
@#13: >>"Copkiller" is derisive, when it should be a term of respect, even admiration.
While I am as appalled as anyone else at the tales of inhumane fuckwittery linked above, I don't think killing cops (or anybody else, really) is a good thing. And while there would be no need for law enforcement in an ideal world, we don't live in an ideal world, and some sort of police force is probably necessary. I just wish we didn't have the one we do.
...The first step toward a solution might be to stop training SWAT teams by having them shoot dogs. I mean, geez, it's like they're _trying_ to cultivate sociopathic behavior.
Posted by: kurage | February 20, 2007 7:45 PM
Any way German Sheperds bite more people than any other dog breed.
No, they bite more people that report the bites. Of the top ten breeds for inappropriate agression, and most of those ten are spaniels and retriever breeds. GSDs are *reported* as biting more often because you don't report spaniel bites, you punt the bugger through the goalposts of life. The "usual suspects" (Pittulls, Rottweilers) don't make the list at all.
Most people don't even know what a Pitbull looks like, any muscular dog with a square head is identified as a "pit". I've even had people think that a Rottweiler or a bull terrier were Pitbulls.
Here, can you spot the Pitbull?
A dog's propensity to bite is conditional more than breeding. Most bites involve uncontrolled male dogs on or at the borders of their territory.
ON TOPIC: The US forces in Iraq like to shoot dogs that are just hanging out on the side of the road (video evidence on youtube). Also, after Katrina various police forces went around shooting dogs for the hell of it. Does dog-hating come with the uniform and the badge?
Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 7:51 PM
"...quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who will care for the caretakers?
Entropy.
Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 7:56 PM
And all the other laws of physics. You guard the corruptible with the incorruptible.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 7:58 PM
kurage wrote:
Oh man, that was WAY too far. There's a big difference between calling for better behavior or more accountability and, whatever that was. Besides, my Dad is a cop, you asshat.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 7:59 PM
RE: #7. First show the documentation which proves dogs are used as targets. Second justify the numerous drug thugs' killing of children (shoot at Joe Rival Pusher and hit an innocent). Etc, etc.
Posted by: Ray D | February 20, 2007 8:02 PM
Err, sorry kurage. I didn't see you were quoting post 13. PZ, can you do some admin intervention and delete #13? I think that post is just asking for problems.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 8:06 PM
What relevance does that have?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 8:13 PM
It occurs to me that it is a territorial thing. The cops claim the whole of their patrol area as territory. They will face down any individual human and demand deference.
An individual dog is armed and territorial. It won't be cowed by uniforms, gun belts or the words writ large on the backs of the uniforms.
Thus a dog that can be seen as capable of attacking in defense of its territory is a competitor that invites a violent response.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | February 20, 2007 8:15 PM
I don't know... maybe the personal kind? Have you taken a battery of courses on the art of being smug or something?
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 8:18 PM
Moral of the story: I should really learn how to quote text instead of just using a double greater than symbol. I should also learn if there's a better word for greater than symbol than greater than symbol.
Posted by: kurage | February 20, 2007 8:20 PM
Yeah, sorry about that. I just thought all of that was some kind of browser garbage.
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 8:22 PM
wow. what would you guys do if you saw a crime taking place? Dial 911 and ask for the fire department?
Posted by: TR | February 20, 2007 8:25 PM
Thus a dog that can be seen as capable of attacking in defense of its territory is a competitor that invites a violent response.
OK, let's make it clear that I am not a USian....
I'm paraphrasing from memory, Tim Robbins "Still Life With Woodpecker": "In Hawaii they had a rat problem, so they imported mongooses to deal with the rats. Now they have a mongoose problem. They had a problem with crime, so they got police to deal with the crime. Now you have a police problem".
My father commented, way back in the 70's, that the US was a police state... run by the police for the benefit of the police. Well, they've been running the show for decades now, what are you going to do about it?
Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 8:26 PM
A cop shooting a child or a bystander is wrong regardless of whether 'drug thugs' or 'pushers'.also shoot children or bystanders.
In turn, a 'pusher' shooting children or bystanders would also be wrong whether cops did it too or no.
To imply that someone objecting to the behavior of cops should have to 'justify' the actions of 'drug thugs' is simply a dishonest and manipulative rhetorical tactic.
Posted by: llewelly | February 20, 2007 8:33 PM
You have got to be kidding me. There is a link in the story. Did you not follow that? Don't you know what we're talking about? Why do I have to justify that? Are you seriously suggesting that cops are justified in shooting kids on the grounds that drug pushers kill kids?
(Thanks, llewelly)
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 8:36 PM
I recall a video posted a while back where a SWAT team was shooting at a suspect and accidentally shot their own dog. They had more concern for the dog that for the guy they'd just shot full of holes.
It was pathetic.
Posted by: Tony P | February 20, 2007 8:39 PM
A useful comparison is the USA versus the USA -- the United States of America of today versus the Union of South Africa during apartheid. The differences are diminishing at an increasing speed.
Face it, to the government, we are all the enemy.
Posted by: BitterWhoMe | February 20, 2007 8:41 PM
Here in Ontario, the police shoot dogs quite often. It's almost never necessary. The police are afraid of dogs, it's that simple. To be fair, they see the underbelly of life on a regular basis - how often does someone call the police just to invite them over for a coffee?
That said, anyone who would open fire on an innocent pet dog doesn't have much reverence for life. Just saying...
The dog shooting thing really bothers me, though, mainly because the citizens don't seem to react with outrage. It's weird.
In Calgary, Alberta, they send animal control in to neutralize any dogs before they make a bust. They haven't used a noose in 7 years, haven't had a bite in more than that. Their whole program is win-win, protect the dogs, protect the owners, protect the agents, on a daily basis in many ways. Educate the police, educate the public about bite prevention, there's a lot more.
Oh, and if you guys want to get into the 'pit bull' thing, just let me know. That's my specialty over at Caveat (http://caveat.blogware.com). We sued the Ontario government and await our judicial ruling, about which we are feeling pretty good. Should come out any day now.
Best half million we've ever spent! Speaking of fascists...
Posted by: Selma | February 20, 2007 8:46 PM
I had a friend who raised pit bulls, and they get more of a bad rap than they deserve. In fact, in Denver, they'll unconditionally confiscate and destroy them (it's illegal to own them there). That isn't a method that I agree with at all. On the other hand, I tend to think that ownership of the dog should be restricted since that kind of ownership requires a measure of personal responsibility and, whenever people are asked to take that kind of responsibility, they probably won't.
It's easy to say that we can just hold the owners of the dogs responsible but, by the time we know that they haven't raised the dog the way they should have, someone's kid has been mauled and it's too late.
I don't know, maybe owner licensing and registration?
Posted by: Dustin | February 20, 2007 8:55 PM
I tend to think that ownership of the dog should be restricted since that kind of ownership requires a measure of personal responsibility and, whenever people are asked to take that kind of responsibility, they probably won't.
Pomeranians have killed children. The only dog I knew personally that was put down for biting was a Springer Spaniel that ripped a kid's face up. ANY breed specific requirement is dumb, because the idiots will just move to a breed not yet covered. So it's all breeds or nothing.
Posted by: Graculus | February 20, 2007 9:13 PM
The incredible insensitivity and arrogance of them, to act like they are the sole arbiters of justice, and then to demonstrate that they have no human empathy.
Anyway.
There was a video of a police shooting a dog at a routine traffic stop that is still up at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/police.kill.dog/index.html
Posted by: Adrian | February 20, 2007 9:22 PM
Dunno about that, but my wife and I foster shelter dogs, and the pitbulls are invariably sweeter, stabler and more bite-inhibited than any other dogs. Of course, part of that is because they have to be exceptionally sweet to avoid being put down by the shelter. Still, they're great dogs all-around, and have an above-average pass rate on the ATTS Temperament Test.
I think a big reason they're popular as fighting dogs is that almost any other breed subjected to that kind of trauma would flip out and be completely unmanageable. Same reason a Staffie was the most decorated dog in WWI (and no, not for tearing enemy soldiers to bloody shreds.)
Posted by: Anton Mates | February 20, 2007 9:32 PM
When people and animals are reduced to targets, you know there's trouble right away. The same people who bewail video games where you rack up the civilian kills ought to be speaking up about how law enforcement officers are being desensitized so indiscriminately.
Oh, and GWW? Your ignorant comment about pit bulls reveals you to be the "dumbass". In England, one of the breeds considered to be a "pit bull" in North America is revered as the all-around best family pet and "nanny dog". It's all in the perspective and the approach. If you train someone or something to be a brutal monster, that's what you get. If you train them to be a well-socialized member of society, you'll be a lot happier with the result. The same principles operate for dogs and for people, if you hadn't noticed.
Posted by: Ancarett | February 20, 2007 9:38 PM
If there were a breed named 'pit bull' it would be easier to ban them. Pretty funnny that the day Denver's latest pet dog extinction project went into effect, a kid was killed by a popular 'family' breed, barely made the papers. Not so funny that they shot a lady's Bull terrier to death in its kennel in her backyard - and that breed isn't even banned in Denver.
Animal Rights (AR) fanatics want to outlaw all animal husbandry, including pet ownership. They lobby at the municipal, state/provincial and federal levels to pass laws such as California's PAWS, the Albuquerque, Louisville, etc ordinances. They spend all of their money on advertising and lobbying. Then you get half-baked politicians whoring for votes who see an opportunity with the 'big bad wolf' to look as though they are actually doing something for the electorate. Their handmaidens in the media get more web hits and print sales whenever they run 'pit bull' stories. Increased audience = higher advertising rates = increased revenues. We had a journalist admit to us that all they had to do was run 'pit bull', didn't even need an accompanying article, to increase readership. That's why they only report 'pit bull' stories no matter how trivial but don't report the Golden who puts a kid in hospital.
Add to this self-styled experts such as Alan Beck at Purdue, who has had a rather lacklustre career in a different area but finds himself being paid to testify on behalf of the bad guys in these cases. Stanley Coren, a pleasant enough old guy, has styled himself as an authority on dog behaviour and also gets paid to testify. Unlike Beck, who at least has 8 or 9 unrelated publications after a 30+ year career, Coren doesn't have ONE scientific paper in the literature. He quotes his stupid '2000 psi' bite pressure for breeds he dislikes, like Rotts and 'pits', yet when I asked him for a reference last summer, he couldn't provide one. He tried to throw me off track, sent along refs for papers I'd already read, said he'd ask his 'friend in the US', probably Beck, if he had one. He couldn't provide it because it doesn't exist. The highest bite force ever recorded in an experiment was 1394 N, which translates to 313 pound-force which translates to .202 psi. (Lindner D et al, J Vet Dent 12(2):49-52, 1995). It's all BS and only Coren and Beck (such as they are) support breed banning and restriction. Everybody else is on our side.
It has been proven 15 ways to Sunday that there is no difference between 'breeds' of dogs in terms of complex behaviours like aggression, that there is no difference in terms of biting strength among dogs of comparable size, that there are inheritable characteristics such as reactivity, physical attributes, disorders, etc, that do contribute to breed diffs, but that genetically it's the same animal in a different package. I've heard of some studies where they've isolated groups such as the Afghan hound as being closest to the ancestor, etc, but I can't find them in PubMed so I don't pay much attention.
All that aside, the reason we sued the Ontario government over it's crackpot 'breed' ban is because while we value dogs, we also have an attachment to our civil rights.
While the public eats modified starch in front of the TV, the government has introduced reverse onus, presumption of criminality based on the shape of otherwise universally legal property in the absence of wrongdoing, warrantless entry into any building including a private residence, search and seizure without due process in public, restrictions on mobility and a law which is so vague and open to subjective interpretation that even those charged with enforcement don't understand it.
Animal control units consult us for explanations. So do SPCA branches. Dogs and owners are being harassed, assaulted, threatened and worse. They are living in fear.
Therapy dogs have been fired, dogs can't participate in a lot of sports, boarding kennels won't take them, PetSmart won't serve them, and so on and so forth. All because they have short hair, whip tails and big smiles. Most of them are mutts, there are hardly any purebreds in Ontario,
There are simple ways to reduce dog-related incidents. The number one contributor is a complete lack of enforcement of licensing and leashing. Active, zero tolerance enforcement of those two simple things alone has been shown to drastically reduce dog-related incidents. It's not as sexy as the big, bad wolf but I sure wish these clowns would get on with it.
Keep in mind that statistically, dog bites have remained pretty stable for decades, that over 99.9% of dogs never bite anybody and that your chance of being seriously mauled by a dog are very slim. The odds of being killed by one are roughly 1 : 16,000,000. In the US, you are more likely to be executed by the State than to be killed by a dog.
Sorry, taking up too much bandwidth, I've been ranting for almost 3 years straight. There's a LOT more.
You should read my interview with Alan Beck, he's a piece of work. I'm not a pro interviewer, just nosey. Here's a link to Pros and Cons of Breed Banning (last post on the page, must get on with categorizing, etc):
http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/BlowhardsBuffoons
Posted by: Selma | February 20, 2007 9:43 PM
"On the other hand I can't possibly imagine that any civil rights group or lawyer would stay away from a case where someone's kid was shot over the basil growing in the windowsill (and yet, I don't hear about those kinds of cases very often)."
Posted by: Dustin
Dustin, what *is* the rate of such lawsuits? You don't know, and neither do I.
I don't hear about SWAT teams shooting innocent people under dubious circumstances often. However, if I were to head over to http://www.theagitator.com/ and Radley's got a long, long set of posts on such behavior.
For another example, there's the 'Innocence Project' (http://www.innocenceproject.org/), which helps out people convicted of murder to make a case for their innocence. It's an on-going project, with a number of law students and lawyers regularly involved, and has gotten numerous people off of Death Row or life sentences. But it only makes news very occasionally.
Posted by: Barry | February 20, 2007 10:07 PM
Sorry, some of these comments are just too plain ignorant. I have no problem with cops shooting dog targets. It's possible for dogs to attack them on raids. The first link is pretty much a non-issue for me. I do have a problem with them shooting dogs for fun, or shooting non-threatening dogs. Obviously, police over-reaction is a problem against both humans and animals. To say things like, "A dog (or another human) who attacks someone invading his or her territory is the one acting in self-defense." leads to what? Should the police just stand there, and say, "We're on a drug raid, but this dog is attacking me. He is just defending his territory, though. I should do nothing. Please help me." Should the police avoid any sort of raid whatsoever to avoid getting in these situations? Sorry, but the best solution is for them to fight back. The animal doesn't understand what's going on, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat.
Posted by: BC | February 20, 2007 10:14 PM
...
...
Some years back I noticed that I could hear a story of a human getting splattered in an auto accident, or a police shooting or whatever, and it was just a sad story. But when I heard about the same thing happening to a dog, it brought furious tears to my eyes.
Aware that the reaction might easily fit into one of those spitty "you animal-lovers hate human beings" diatribes, I tried to figure out why I felt that way.
It was just this: Generally, dogs don't have any choices, except those we humans give them. They are the ultimate in powerless - their entire lives and deaths are organized and commanded by us. Given that, to mistreat them in any way is especially nasty.
Humans can take care of themselves, and we know it. Even the least of us have champions - friends, family, government institutions, volunteers, on and on. Yes, it happens that humans abuse each other, but there are extremely powerful agents in place to punish and discourage it.
But dogs? They've got next to nothing. Some bastard can neglect, starve, beat and even kill his dog and easily get away with it. The dog can't even complain. And it's not just that a dog can't talk, or suffers from a size difference. It's that they've been bred to love us and depend on us - they can't even CONCEIVE of leaving, or retaliating against, an abusive owner.
What we feel when a man slaps around a woman, or a bigger kid beats up a smaller one, is based on the imbalance of power between the two.
When the bullying is between a human and a dog, the imbalance of power is not even on the same scale. The feeling of compassionate anger jumps up several notches into justifiable rage.
...
I gotta say this: MOST of the people I see with pit bulls look like they're using the dog to make some sort of pathetically weak statement about their own macho toughness. No offense intended to you genuinely loving pit bull owners, but you do have to admit this happens in all too many cases. German shepherds have suffered from the same effect in the past, but today, nothing says "fear and respect me" like a pit bull.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 20, 2007 10:19 PM
Dogs can definitely be dangerous...that's why the police themselves use dogs during manhunts. Certainly police should do a much a possible to avoid unnecessary loss of life, even if it's the life of the family dog, but they should also defend themselves from attacks.
We also should remember that even though innocent families are occasionally mixed up in these raids, more often than not the police are conducting a legitimate raid of an illegal drug lab. The reason SWAT "attacks" homes in this way is to try to minimize casualties by catching people off guard. It is also important to note that these raids are being conducted under warrant. That means that a judge reviewed the police's Probable Cause, so should they share some of the blame if a house is unjustly targeted? I think so.
Finally, the real problem here are the restrictive drug laws themselves. Eliminate the war on drugs and you'll eliminate the warriors.
Posted by: Matt | February 20, 2007 10:23 PM
I did a blog entry about this a while back.
http://www.anomalousdata.com/PermaLink,guid,e8a93a8d-dfec-48f7-9f4b-3be71272de7c.aspx
Posted by: Teresa | February 20, 2007 10:38 PM
I just did a post on this one, too. To more or less sum up what I said there, though, first responders of any variety - Police, EMS, Fire, whatever - can never safely ignore a dog when entering a home. The situations that bring first responders into a home all involve sudden and potentially frightening changes for the animal. They are taking place in the animal's home territory. They are (most often) affecting a member of the dog's family. This very, very easily creates a situation where a dog of any (or no) breed can perceive a threat and react appropriately.
Shooting a dog should never be anything other than a measure of last resort, but it is occasionally necessary.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | February 20, 2007 11:07 PM
I am continuously amazed at the human capacity for cruelty. To each other, to other creatures, to whole populations at times.
We've never learned the first rule of civilization: never shit where you eat...
But at the same time, we seem to be able to hold ourselves as (somehow) superior to each other, and other creatures, and that somehow makes it ok to use and abuse each other, and other creatures. Why? Because 'God' said so. Well, what kind of 'God' would say that? The kind that is also cruel and (somehow) superior to everyone.
Kinda' funny...
Posted by: pm | February 20, 2007 11:08 PM
What's the big deal? They're just dogs. These people expose themselves to far more danger than you ever will.
Posted by: thaumaturge | February 20, 2007 11:10 PM
Won't disagree with you here, but remember that "their own" means other police officers, not their friends and neighbors.
Posted by: darrell | February 20, 2007 11:17 PM
I haven't noticed that, myself. Lots of macho thug-types have pit bulls, certainly, but in my experience they've been surprisingly loving owners. If you want a dog to terrify people over three feet tall, you're going to go for a German shepherd or a Doberman or a Preso Canario or something else with speed and reach and height. A pit bull, on the other hand, isn't especially deadly, but combines a macho appearance with a friendly disposition, so they're a good pick for the Thug Who Needs Love™.
And I have a Ph.D. in Ghetto Fabulous, so you should listen to me, unless you have some of that "data" stuff or something.
Which is not to say there aren't thousands of pit bull owners who should have their animals taken away, followed by deportation to Venus. But as far I've seen the particular ways in which they're horrible owners have either centered around dogfighting, or just being generally neglectful and abusive.
Posted by: Anton Mates | February 20, 2007 11:22 PM
If this had *anything* to do with cops "being mean" or "fascist" or anything like that, wouldn't you expect that they would *also* shoot the kitty-cats, crush the hamsters, pour out the goldfish, strangle the birdies, and so forth? After all, wouldn't killing other pets give the cops their fascist jollies too, if that's what they were after? But I don't see anything in the article that suggests that other pets are being killed. Only the species which is often trained to attack intruders and which is capable of inflicting serious injury. Odd that.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | February 20, 2007 11:42 PM
Owning a mean, violent dog means "I'm concerned about my penis size. See? I'm a real manly man man man." Same with Hummers (dear god, the name alone...) and convertibles. At least that's my initial bias.
Re: Swine Shooting Dogs, I'm persuaded to agree with darrell's 'class traitors' comment. I feel bad for them that they've decided to protect power and wealth instead of we the people, but it was their choice. They deserve our scorn, and probably should be fully disarmed for the safety of the nation. Also, they're nasty violent brutish thugs who need to physically dominate and abuse the weak. I'd like to compare the incidence of spousal abuse in households with a police officer with that of civilians.
And don't let us start on prison guards. Like cops, but their territory never changes, and their ritual tortures and abuses are celebrated instead of tut-tutted.
I want law and order and peace as much as anyone, but as of now the law only protects the powerful. There has been class war on the poor in America ever since the term was coined, and it's high time we fought back. The robber barons and war profiteers need to be rounded up and held to account. And that's just for starters.
Posted by: Stogoe | February 21, 2007 12:07 AM
The whole swat raid thing is disturbing as there are less lethal options out there, but it's always guns. This isn't the same as a hostage situation, this is an invasion of private property.
Now i'm not going to say that the raids are all off base and unwarranted, but Swat seems to never take into account that they might be wrong. seriously, why are we not seeing more of the less lethal options being used?
Course less lethal doesn't fix everything as there are more than enough reports of their abuse too.
all in all, i can't condemn the police as a whole. I still believe that there are more good cops than bad. The only real problem is that there is little that is done about those who shouldn't be cops.
And think about it, the police have a job where they are basically in a very unstable situation. they have to assume that all people might go off on them. This has to be very stressful to the officers. how easy is it to just say "screw it" and treat all people like crap.
I wonder if anyone knows how officers in their district are treated psychologically during their careers. can they see counseling if they feel they need it? are they looked down upon for it?
neutralization of dangerous pets is probably necessary, but why are we not looking into better ways of doing it? one that just might not kill the animal.
oh well, one can dream
Posted by: Cat of Many Faces | February 21, 2007 12:21 AM
They DID only use paintballs... sheesh. And yes, when going into a potentially (and often likely) situation where the perps have guns and USE THEM, a dog on your leg or arm will get you dead quick.
Of course this can ALL be fixed: decriminalize drugs and pump all that drug war money into rehab programs and finding better ways to treat addicts.
Personally, I can see both sides. Calling them fascist is silly. They're trying not get killed in a highly dangerous situation.
(Class traitors? Someone takes Chomsky a bit far...)
Posted by: Shawn S. | February 21, 2007 12:33 AM
Oh, PZ, you have just plummeted in my estimation. I thought you were a scientist -- you know, a person who looked at the evidence.
Two of the many questions that spring to my mind:
What percentage of SWAT teams train in the way you have refenced?
What percentage of emergency calls entail threats from a canine?
I'm with Mike Dunford on this one.
I also refer you to the cases of
Diane Whipple (yes, it is Wikipedia, but the facts are correct)
Jennifer Brooke (yes, I refer to the dogs as "pit bulls"; I'd do better verification now)
Alice Broom, an elderly woman killed by a pack of young, unsocialized dogs.
I've been handling big dogs (and horses) for 30+ years. I've been bitten by dogs exactly twice: a beagle, and a chihuahua.
Yes, I'd prefer to tranquilize (or otherwise neutralize) dogs posing a threat, rather than killing them. However, no canine sedatives are instantaneous. Faced with a choice between serious bodily harm to a human, and the death of a dog? I'd chose the human's well-being.
(As an aside, I oppose breed bans. My block-headed, stocky Laborador Retriever is your Rottweiler, and so on.)
Posted by: Liz Ditz | February 21, 2007 12:33 AM
I agree that focusing on the dogs is silly...police should be held accountable for everything they discharge a firearm at.
As for the noble police and all these dangerous situations they get into, did you ever think that in general it's the police who are causing the problems? These people are in high stress jobs, I'm not going to argue against that, but is it to much to ask that they act responsibly, and in the horrible event they fuck up be held accountable for it?
Our gun-crazed country and our trigger happy police officers work against eachother, there's no doubt about it, to create a more dangerous world for everyone. But that doesn't make every violent police officer out there a hero who is constantly in the line of fire. It makes them, as I said before, part of the problem. They're just another gang, just another bunch of thugs. They just happen to be supported by the state. Good for them.
That's why until our beat cops and regular police officers stop carrying guns they should be subject to the balance of power.
Posted by: darrell | February 21, 2007 1:20 AM
As for the noble police and all these dangerous situations they get into, did you ever think that in general it's the police who are causing the problems?
Actually, that's pretty irrelevant; given the existence of a violent social system, something like our police will...evolve to fit a function that police are being called to serve.
Posted by: gwangung | February 21, 2007 1:29 AM
There is nothing lower than using dogs to do human's dirtywork.
But than, there's nothing lower than a cop.
And ever since 9-11 every fucking cop thinks he's fucking Jack Bauer.
The only thing worse than a cop is seeing grown men giving cops a please-fuck-me look while the dogs sniff their cars at the ferry dock.
Oh, they started out looking for bombs in cars, but of course, there was nothing, so now the cops go down the rows of cars looking into each driver's lap to make sure they aren't jacking off or looking at porno mags
Yeah, their gonna catch somebody endangering America with their wanger.
What a hoax this War on Terror is. And what a bunch of punks we are to put up with it.
Posted by: Mooser | February 21, 2007 1:29 AM
Owning a mean, violent dog means "I'm concerned about my penis size. See? I'm a real manly man man man."
So, people who own Pomeranians have small dicks?
Interesting.
Posted by: Graculus | February 21, 2007 1:36 AM
This exchange was pretty illuminating. No wonder so many Americans consider whats going on in Iraq as a "police action" while the rest of us consider it borderline genocide.
If this is how the police treat their own citizens, is it any wonder they don't give a rats ass about Iraqis or Iranians? Man, this really sickens, and frankly frightens me:-(
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | February 21, 2007 2:27 AM
Why are people allowed to purebreed dogs at all? A huge portion of this crap would be easily resolved by not allowing ownership of pure breeds without an indication of need. A purebred hunting dog would be fine, a purebred herding dog would be fine, but only if they were needed to do the actual work. All pet dogs, assuming they were not varifiably used for work, would be mutts. There would still be astounding variation, there would be much better health, and the dogs themselves would only be able to be rightly judged by their upbringing.
And before anyone asks, yes, I feel that breeds such as the Mexican hairless are the result of humans abusing an animal in the most horrific way, i.e., by enforced breeding resulting in a disgusting display of faddish idiocy. That dog is going to be uncomfortable its entire life, just so one jackass can claim to be fashionable.
Posted by: autumn | February 21, 2007 2:45 AM
Some purebred dogs are actually judged more on their upbringing than anything else - American Border Collie Association dogs are one example of this. (AKC registry border collies, on the other hand, are now - sadly - being bred for looks.)
I'll admit to some bias here, since my first (and current) dog is a rescued border collie, but I have a hard time imagining ever getting a different breed. Why? Because many of the traits that BCs are bred for are the same traits that I would be looking for in any dog.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | February 21, 2007 3:27 AM
And before anyone asks, yes, I feel that breeds such as the Mexican hairless are the result of humans abusing an animal in the most horrific way, i.e., by enforced breeding resulting in a disgusting display of faddish idiocy. That dog is going to be uncomfortable its entire life, just so one jackass can claim to be fashionable.
Isn't the Mexican hairless an ancient breed and not a recent fad? Not that it still can't be uncomfortable, but they might not be as fucked up healthwise as recently heavily modified breeds.
Posted by: windy | February 21, 2007 7:36 AM
Well, fuck, if you're gonna torture and kill people, why not shoot their dogs while you're at it?
Posted by: Dunc | February 21, 2007 8:12 AM
I've been trying to think how to respond to some of the bizarre stuff on this thread, but now I can simply thank Shawn S.(about 10 messages back)- he pretty much said everything I wanted to say.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 21, 2007 8:22 AM
Zillions of abandoned pets in pounds and shelters and still people keep breeding them. It's nuts.
Lots of people with dogs are not responsible when it comes to keeping then on a leash in protected wildlife areas. They let them run and chase birds and shit all over the place.
I'm not a big fan of irresponsible dog owners. And there are lots of them.
Posted by: George | February 21, 2007 8:23 AM
OK, true story time...
When I was a boy living in a small village in upstate New York (Palmyra, if you must know), dogs were pretty much allowed to roam at will. Sure, there were laws intended to prevent this, but they were universally ignored and unenforced. Until one day in the late 60's.
For some reason, the mayor decided enough was enough and directed one of the village police officers to shoot a group of dogs that were running loose. The group was made up of a variety of neighborhood pets, including a wonderful Dalmatian that belonged to a former neighbor.
And my dog.
A few days afterwards, one of the colleagues of the officer who shot the dogs came by the house and asked my mother if he could speak to me and my two younger brothers. He apologized to us, said that they didn't have to shoot the dogs, that there were other ways they had to control animals, and that he came by to apologize because he didn't want us to have a bad impression of the police. Over the years, my respect for that officer (whose name I can not remember) has soared. As for the other guy...
A few months later, my parents were at a party and a few of the party goers had parked illegally. A patrolman came by and my mother went out to move her car. It was the same cop that had killed the dogs. He spoke to mom: "I'm sorry Ethel Mae, but you're going to have to move your car."
Her response? "Well, Jim. I guess you could always shoot it."
Posted by: NJ | February 21, 2007 9:15 AM
I would happily bankrupt myself and go into deep debt to sue the asses of the state, the agency, and every individual officer involved in a raid where my dog was shot.
Posted by: Ric | February 21, 2007 9:51 AM
I should also learn if there's a better word for greater than symbol than greater than symbol.
Right angle bracket.
Posted by: speedwell | February 21, 2007 9:51 AM