They shoot the dogs?

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.

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?

I'm writing this with a pit bull laying on my lap.

Pit bulls are for dumbasses.

I think I'm developing a taste for lutefisk.

When the bad guys use dogs as weapons...

Yes, the pigs *do* use dogs as weapons, oh wait, you mean the bad guys who aren't agents of the state.

Slaughtering family pets is what I'd expect of a psychopath.

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).

When the bad guys use dogs as weapons, I expect the police to practice disarming them. What's the problem here?

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.

When all you have is a hammer, you begin to deny the existence of screws.

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.

The problem isn't shooting dogs that attack them.

Everything you listed is a problem, but so is the above. It is not possible for the police to kill in self defense because they are on the offense. A dog (or another human) who attacks someone invading his or her territory is the one acting in self-defense.

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.

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"?

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).

And the government always supports these "heroes."

Given that the police only exist to sustain the government, a reciprocal relationship is unsurprising. The really annoying thing is that ordinary civilians also tend to support them. "Copkiller" is derisive, when it should be a term of respect, even admiration.

@ 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.

Most police are class traitors

Class traitors?

"...quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who will care for the caretakers?

The Coast Guard?

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.

Class traitors?

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.

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...

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.

but they're employed solely to protect the wealth of the government and the very rich.

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.

@#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.

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?

"...quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who will care for the caretakers?

Entropy.

Entropy.

And all the other laws of physics. You guard the corruptible with the incorruptible.

kurage wrote:

"Copkiller" is derisive, when it should be a term of respect, even admiration.

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.

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.

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.

Besides, my Dad is a cop, you asshat.

What relevance does that have?

Does dog-hating come with the uniform and the badge?

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.

What relevance does that have?

I don't know... maybe the personal kind? Have you taken a battery of courses on the art of being smug or something?

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.

Yeah, sorry about that. I just thought all of that was some kind of browser garbage.

wow. what would you guys do if you saw a crime taking place? Dial 911 and ask for the fire department?

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?

Second justify the numerous drug thugs' killing of children (shoot at Joe Rival Pusher and hit an innocent). Etc, etc.

Dustin never implied killing of children by anyone was ok.
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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

You obviously know only what you read or hear in the mass media concerning pittbulls.

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.)

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.

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, <1000 out of 2.5 million dogs.

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

"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.

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.

...

...

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.

...

...

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.

I did a blog entry about this a while back.
http://www.anomalousdata.com/PermaLink,guid,e8a93a8d-dfec-48f7-9f4b-3be…

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.

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...

What's the big deal? They're just dogs. These people expose themselves to far more danger than you ever will.

Um, no. I think the cops tend to put loyalty to their own over loyalty to the public

Won't disagree with you here, but remember that "their own" means other police officers, not their friends and neighbors.

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. German shepherds have suffered from the same effect in the past, but today, nothing says "fear and respect me" like a pit bull.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...)

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.)

What's the big deal? They're just dogs. These people expose themselves to far more danger than you ever will.

and

Calling them fascist is silly. They're trying not get killed in a highly dangerous situation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:-(

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.

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.

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.

Well, fuck, if you're gonna torture and kill people, why not shoot their dogs while you're at it?

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.

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.

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."

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.

I should also learn if there's a better word for greater than symbol than greater than symbol.

Right angle bracket.

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".

Somehow I don't think that's the same breed as has been used for pit fighting. "Pit bulls" may be closely related to "nanny dogs" but sick fucks have changed the characteristics of the breed to something that is not safe. Training can go only so far in the face of that; and what is worse there may be no warning that a dog is unsafe. It's not the fault of the dogs, but breeding more dogs like this is no kindness. The name should not be the issue; if we can identify which dogs haven't had their ancestors bred for that vile sport, there need not be any impediment to breeding such varieties.

Well, I don't think that anything associated in any way with the War on Some Drugs should be described as "legitimate". But setting that issue aside for the moment...

At first I started to write a suggestion that the police should carry a second, nonlethal weapon for incapacitating the dogs, who after all are only trying to defend their homes and friends with no understanding of what the hell is going on.

But then it dawned on me - why are the police allowed to carry killing weapons at all? Why shouldn't they be using nonlethal subduing weapons on everyone? If someone really does need to be executed, they can be executed *after* a trial, not shot on sight by some police officer (as horribly unreliable as a criminal conviction can be, the snap judgment of one person is very likely even more fallible). Stray shots and mistaken identity are also obviously far less harmful with a nonlethal weapon.

If this might lead to fewer people becoming police officers - good. Then we might be able to reverse some of the ratcheting up making everything illegal to provide work for a growing police officers' lobby. There's more than enough police to enforce all the *necessary* laws. They just get distracted by the unnecessary ones.

There are two variables missing from the wild generalizations about cops, both pro and con, floating around this discussion. One: police dept.'s vary tremendously from place to place around this country, just like any other organization has an institutional personality. Two: the police treat people differently by class and by expectation of resistance (in a way that correlates the two).

Poor people can expect to have their dogs shot casually by dept.'s that inculcate 'badass with a gun' personalities.

As a local (Austin) policeman joked to a friend of mine, whom he'd just maced, "white people get maced, black people get tasered." This was the policeman's way of saying my friend should consider himself lucky he wasn't black. That said, Houston police are considered to be far, far worse.

Drug raids, of the type described, are not likely to be carried out against wealthy targets. As an NYPD officer said years ago, when dealing with wealthy targets "you're never sure to enter with your gun in your hand or your hat in your hand."

Busting a suspected meth lab in a low rent neighborhood = a Free Fire Zone.

Finally, as to accountability, when police fuck up police lie through their teeth. Two years ago the police raided the wrong address without identifying themselves, and when the resident attempted to defend his home agains these unknown attackers he was shot to pieces. Cops claimed they'd identified themselves, but dozens of neighbors nailed them for perjury. The entire operation found less than a gram of marijuana (in another home) and a man was dead.

This is unacceptable in a free country.

So, rather than insult all cops or try to defend your home, wait until after the local police department has failed to supply justice, wait a few months, and then blow the fuckwad's head open with a deer rifle from a safe distance. That way, everybody's happy.
.

I live in Houston and I practice social shunning of cops in uniform. Drives them nuts... but I'm not doing anything illegal, just minding my own business, looking elsewhere, and pointedly not noticing them.

When I used to teach evolution, one objection that would always come up is that artificial selection has never been able to produce a new species, so I would point out that, if we eliminated all the intermediate sized dogs, the Great Dane and Mexican Hairless would be as effectively reproductively isolated as many natural species, but I think most of the students were so horrified at the thought of eliminating all those poor doggies that they completely missed the point.

I love all the comments about fascism and cops - feel free to tell me all about how often you've put yourself in harms way for a stranger.

And I'm sure none of you would ever dream of calling the police if someone was trying to break into your home. Likewise, I assume you all possess the means to defend your families if called upon to do so?

Yes, there are cops who abuse their authority and power. Please indicate any slice of society where this doesn't occur, in the space thoughtfully provided at the end of this line: _

In the 90s the scapegoat dog was the Rottweiler. In the 80s it was the Dobermann. In the 70s it was the German Shepard. Like these, Pitbulls will eventually be forgotten as the big bad wolf and a new bogeyman will be chosen. Could it be YOUR dog?
Go ahead and laugh. It's happended before.
And it WILL happen again.
Oh yes.
It WILL happen again.

All drug's should be legal and taxed.

dea cop's are the lowest form of evolutionary scum!
Hard drug's should be maid available
at pharmacies and cannabis distributed
like they do in amsterdam.

Their hashish bar's are the most!

But then it dawned on me - why are the police allowed to carry killing weapons at all? Why shouldn't they be using nonlethal subduing weapons on everyone?

They're not as reliable at "subduing". (They're also not "nonlethal" but they are substantially less likely to kill someone.)
Armed or not, I don't think we can really do without cops entirely in our societies. And I can certainly understand that cops can make honest mistakes with fast-paced high-stakes encounters, or be forced by circumstance to kill. I will be slow to accuse individual officers of malice or incompetence.
But I also recognize that malice and abuse by the police is far too common (and varies with location). And I think the current police- and punitive-centered approach to "fighting" crime in North America is very misguided.

as long as the police continue to carry guns every US citizen should have the right to defend themselves against them, using lethal force if necessary.

Which is one of the two original reasons for the right to bear arms. (The other being "well, {we don't like your kind/you didn't pay our bribe}, so we won't protect you".)

It all depends on how you raise the dog, whether it'll be aggressive or friendly.

Breeding is also an issue... when I was a kid, we got a dog from a puppy mill. A high-strung Golden Retriever. We got rid of it after it had bitten every member of the family, and thus had no more defenders.

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,

Sometimes they do... certainly, they often trash people's houses or cars basically to "show them who's boss".

first responders of any variety - Police, EMS, Fire, whatever - can never safely ignore a dog when entering a home.

Which in no way implies that the appropriate response is to shoot them. These guys have body armor, and on a raid they can bring along whatever tools they need -- boots and/or gauntlets, towels/blankets, nets, etc. They can damn well be taught to defend themselves against a dog without killing it.

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.

Every time we get an abusive-cop story here in NYC, somebody comes up with the line, "oh, he's just a bad apple, most of the cops are fine". Nobody ever remembers the whole phrase: One bad apple spoils the whole barrel. The only way to keep that sort of behavior under control is to enforce a zero-tolerance policy not only for abuse, but for covering up abuse. Instead, we get a "Blue Wall of Silence", backed up by various regulations protecting the police from acountability.

NJ: "Well, Jim. I guess you could always shoot it."

Thus demonstrating how social control only works within a community, when the cops are dealing with people who know them personally. Around here, most cops can't afford to live in nice parts of the city, and they're scared to live in the parts they could afford. So they get shipped in from the suburbs to "police" people who'll never see them without a badge and gun.

"white people get maced, black people get tasered."

And if you are white and protesting illegal logging, they will go out of their way to rub pepper spray into your eyeballs.

http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/31/pepper.spray.update/

first responders of any variety - Police, EMS, Fire, whatever - can never safely ignore a dog when entering a home.

Which in no way implies that the appropriate response is to shoot them. These guys have body armor, and on a raid they can bring along whatever tools they need -- boots and/or gauntlets, towels/blankets, nets, etc. They can damn well be taught to defend themselves against a dog without killing it.

1. I specifically said that shooting a dog should absolutely be the last resort, not something that has been routinely done.

2. Body armor is designed to stop a bullet, not a dog. Hands, arms, legs, and other parts of the body are not well protected at all.

3. There are situations where stopping to deal with a dog in a nonleathal manner can put someone in a much, much greater risk of harm from other sources.

Chris, #76: There is no such thing as an instant non-lethal incapacitator. Instant knock-out gas or instant tranc guns are hollywood inventions, and don't exist in reality.

Tasering a suspect works fine in a controlled environment, when it is clear that waiting a few seconds won't get you shot. In a raid, I don't expect a policeman to have that luxury. I completely support their right to protect themselves while doing their job, and if that involves shooting a dog, so be it.

Not directly in response to you, more as a generality, what surprises me by these kinds of debates in the US is that the immediate response by so many people seems to be "I should just arm myself more". That's insanity. No matter how heavily armed, you won't win against the state. Ask Dave Koresh. The obvious solution should be less arms. If the cops assume that they won't get shot when making the raid, they are less inclined to shoot as well. (Which, I think, answers Grand Moff Texans post #77) Scandinavia is a perfect example of this - the police have guns, but almost no one else. As far as I can remember, the only non-criminal shot by police in the last five years or so was a demented 70-year old who brandished a (as it turned out, defunct)shotgun.

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".

Somehow I don't think that's the same breed as has been used for pit fighting.

It is precisely the same breed. The English Staffordshire was bred for fighting bulls, bears and other dogs.

The thing about pit fighting, particularly dogfighting, is that it requires a good dog. A hyper-aggressive nutcase won't work. You need dogs that are loyal enough to fight aggressive animals of similar or greater size just because their owners say so; dogs that are stable enough to nevertheless not fight anything that moves outside the ring; and dogs that are so reluctant to bite humans that their owners can wade straight into the melee and pull them apart by hand when the round's over. Furthermore, because the psychos who like dogfights want a good, long, exciting fight, you don't want dogs that are talented at actually killing each other.

That's the terrible irony of it. Some of the bloodiest and most horrible sports imaginable have resulted in some of the most well-behaved dog breeds.

Here's an interesting map from the Cato institute, showing botched paramilitary raids and giving details on the outcome-

raid on an innocent,
death of an innocent,
Unnecessary raids on doctors and sick people,
Death of a nonviolent offender,
Other examples of paramilitary police excess

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Hank Fox, I just read your overwrought post. I sincerely hope you

1. are a vegan
2. get heartsick every time you see someone eat BLT sandwich

Lets get to the heart of the issue. Big cities, the police are treated like shit and targets by a certain segment of the population. It doesn't matter if the idiot complaining about them is a drug runner, a car theif or some lady who can't understand why they didn't show up in five minutes to check on the noise outside her window, because they are too busy dodging bullets from car theives and drug pushers. I agree, part of the problem is the bullshit issue of drugs. Some people have proposed **treatment**, instead of jail time. Sadly, the only person to really suggest it was Nixon and a few months later the idiot he put in charge of the project was indicted for something else, and the whole thing got flushed down the toilet. No one is interested in the expense, half the same Christo-fundies that want to stop drugs refuse to use the best treatments, because they imagine those *promoting* the use of drugs instead (much like fracking real sex education of HPV vaccines). Police are under funded, under protected, under equipped, with most having out of date body armor, no access to less than lethal arms, no training in how to deal with situations to defuse them, instead of using violence, and the people that don't treat them with undeserved reverence treat them like pariah, even when they are *good* cops.

You have to be fracking crazy to be a cop in most big cities, why the hell is it a surprise that half of the people that join are slightly crazy, the good ones go nuts over time and confronted by ungrateful, or outright hostile, people, they might develop a, "screw you, we are more important than you people", attitude? Sure, part of the problem is rich idiots and the government pushing them in stupid directions. But **they** actually appreciate when one shows up some place, and don't shoot at them. Who the hell do you expect them to cater to under those circumstances?

And, just to be clear. When cops and local work together to solve problems **both** tend to improve and the bad ones start getting weeded out. Its only in places where 50% of the population thinks cops are automatically gun toting madmen and its OK to shoot them that **nothing** happens to change things, and the cops just get more and more self preserving and inhumane. But again, what the hell do you expect. People have "allowed" their cities to become war zones by turning a blind eye to everything, including their own neighbors, they want someone to show up and *fix* all of it for them, without them lifting a damn finger to help, **then** they get pissed off when it takes a platoon of nuts who are better armed than some army platoons to actually do anything about the situation. Cry me a river! But don't blame *rich people* and *the government* for letting things get so screwed up in the first place that SWAT teams have become "standard" methods of dealing with damn near every problem. Especially when things like Meth labs, unlike pot growers, amount to a fracking bomb factory in the middle of someone's street, 90% of the people know or suspect it, but no one wants to so much as tell the idiots to get lost, never mind help the cops get rid of them less violently.

The problem is screwed up from the top (government) to the bottom (the oh so concerned, but unwilling to do anything useful, citizens). And if cops feel like the only people that give a shit about them is other cops, even the best of them are going to defend *other cops* before they consider defending you "period". As usually, no one wants to understand the problem and fix it, because that would require effort, so they just babble about government conspiracies, the insanity of the police force and how its all some unfixable mess that needs to just be replaced, somehow, someway, preferably by someone else, because well... we just don't have the time or interest in actually doing anything about it.

Should the police avoid any sort of raid whatsoever to avoid getting in these situations?

I'm all for the police being able to use whatever force necessary to protect themselves from immediate threats, but that right comes with some serious responsibility. The no-knock SWAT-type raids being done are supposed to be tools of last resort for only the most dangerous of circumstances. They're being used far more expansively than that, and they're causing unnecessary escalation in a lot of circumstances. There are a number of cases of these types of assaults going to the wrong address or going after a minor pot offender with no history to indicate a serious threat. Immediately, the situation goes from routine arrest to potential war zone.

I imagine that if I owned a gun and I woke up to a bunch of armed people came pouring into my home in the dark, I'd be firing away in a panic, probably hurting a police officer and almost definitely getting myself and my wife killed. The issue shouldn't be the fact that sometimes a cop has to shoot a person or animal to defend himself. The issue is that we have a culture of violent escalation that creates incredibly dangerous confrontations where none was necessary.

The heart of the matter is that the insanely counterproductive "war on drugs" has had a pervasively corrupting influence on law enforcment (and I use the word "corrupt" advisedly, since there's plenty of Federal cash available for going along with the program, not to mention laws in meny places that allow agencies to keep seized assets.)

#22: I found it on the first try. I should probably watch less Animal Planet.

Seriously, though, if a cop shot my dog, he'd better be ready to shoot me too. I'd go berserk, and as nonviolent as I am, animal cruelty is one of the things that sets me off. And it's even worse when it's an animal I know personally...

Scandinavia is a perfect example of this - the police have guns, but almost no one else.

Wrong, plenty of people own guns, but they are mostly hunting weapons and ownership is controlled.

LaBonne@93: They even get to sieze assets of people who are innocent of any crime, as long as they falsely arrest them first.

...

...

Hank Fox ... I sincerely hope you 1. are a vegan / 2. get heartsick every time you see someone eat BLT sandwich

Usually, I let people eat in peace. I think it's because I hate L and T so much that it overrides my compassion for B.

...

...

"feel free to tell me all about how often you've put yourself in harms way for a stranger."

8 yrs US Army - People like you make me regret ever joining...now go fuck yourself.

"And I'm sure none of you would ever dream of calling the police if someone was trying to break into your home. Likewise, I assume you all possess the means to defend your families if called upon to do so?"

The police are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect ANYONE. The second is none of your business tard.

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".

Somehow I don't think that's the same breed as has been used for pit fighting.

It is precisely the same breed. The English Staffordshire was bred for fighting bulls, bears and other dogs.

You're quite right and I'm wrong. However in my reading I have discovered a few other things as well. The first is that breeding the dogs for dog fighting has been continued up to the present time, and later breeders have not been so punctilious about breeding out aggression to humans. And as I thought the American version is a somewhat different breed. (Though the loose terminology of "pit bull" rather confuses the issue).

The police are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect ANYONE.

Wow. I just... Wow.

What has you agast, Calidonian?  What Sean D. said (which is true), or the fact that he said it?

The idea that the police are under no obligation to stop a crime that they see being committed.

The police are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect ANYONE.

LOL.

I'm reminded of when i was getting my rescue diver certification many years ago, and our instructor made it very clear that if we merely mentioned or showed that certification while on a dive boat, or in any public setting where diving was occurring, by state law that made us liable for assisting in the rescue of anyone that got into trouble while diving.

IOW, if after revealing my certification status, I voluntarily chose not to to assist in the rescue of a diver in trouble, they could legally sue me.

and someone here is trying to pass off the idea that a cop has no legal responsibility to protect the public?

The only time I could even envision that being a possibility is for an off-duty cop (though i rather doubt it even then), but for an on-duty cop?

not hardly.

Pit Bulls are the bad-dog-du-jour. Before Pit Bulls, it was Rottweilers, before Rottweilers, it was Dobermans, before Dobermans, it was German Shepherds, before German Shepherds, it was Great Danes. This chronology carries us back to about the 50s. (I'm old, remember.)

Pit Bulls are exceptionally intelligent and loyal dogs, and they have very strong jaws because they were bred to be cattle dogs, and had to be able to subdue a large, strong animal by themselves. But they are not especially dangerous to people unless trained to be. The ones bred to fight are put down if they attack people.

Personally, I love Pit Bulls.

@ Ichthyic

In my city you don't need a rescue diver certificate to become a cop.

In my city you don't need a rescue diver certificate to become a cop.

I bet you don't even need a dog license.

did you have a point?

"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."

I agree. That was just wrong, as have been a couple of other anti-police statements here (cops are class traitors? wtf?), but that one in particular was completely out of line.

Sean D wrote:

>8 yrs US Army - People like you make me regret ever joining...now go fuck yourself.

What's your problem here, Sean? I'm reading through a bunch of comments from people who think cops are fascist stormtroopers, but aren't willing to take over the job if they were offered.

>The police are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect ANYONE.

And yet, they do it anyway. What's your point?

>The second is none of your business tard.

Like I care, sweet pea.

prohibition is the cause of violence.

That's why the fuzz want's prohibition to stay,
plus all the money and drug,s they can steal!

their is nothing wrong with casual use of any drug.
once it start's becoming a habit, it becomes
a health issue, NOT a crime! In the current hysteria
they even hassle pain mangement doctor's. so even if
your in horrible pain you can not get the life saving
opiate's you need.

Cannabis co-op's are also targted by these Idiot's.

Iam so sick of the "save the children" b.s.
Education is the answer not jail!

those who wrote in support of prohibition
and their enforcer's,face the fact's PROBITION
ain't workin never has never will.

Only people that benifit are the police,
lawyer's, jail builder's, criminal gang's
and politican's like that sorry ass mark souder
hearing him talk about drug's is like watching
one of those campy drug scare movies from the 1930's

Here's a thought experiment for everyone.

For the word "cop" substitute "terrorist".

Now, ask yourselves who you sound like.

Nearly everyone in America has friends and family that make regular use of illegal drugs. Because cops are duty-bound to investigate evidence of illegal drug use, any co-operation or friendship with cops involves the risk of imprisonment of friends or family members. In addition, there are many cases where police have repossessed private property on the grounds that someone allegedly used said property to sell drugs, yet the alleged drug seller, was not the owner, but a friend or family member.

Many of the anti-cop attitudes I see expressed here, as well of much of the misbehavior of cops, could reduced or prevented by greater co-operation and community relation with cops.

But the perceived need to persecute drug users makes such co-operation dangerous and impractical for nearly all Americans.

The anti-cop attitudes displayed by commenters here, and the dreadful police misbehaviors that inspired these attitudes, and the loss of rights described in the US constitution, are the collateral damage of the drug war. If you are upset when cops break into the wrong house, repossess the wrong car, or shoot an innocent bystander, seek to end the drug war. If you are upset by anti-cop attitudes, seek to end the drug war.

As long as drug use continues to be demonized, no effort to lessen the hostilities between cops and non-cops can have more than temporary and indifferent success.

>The second is none of your business tard.

Like I care, sweet pea.

Posted by: Chili Pepper | February 22, 2007 10:15 AM

Then why ask the question?

Oh, that's right..because you're TROLLING.

See ya fuckface.

"and someone here is trying to pass off the idea that a cop has no legal responsibility to protect the public?

The only time I could even envision that being a possibility is for an off-duty cop (though i rather doubt it even then), but for an on-duty cop?

not hardly."

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 21, 2007 09:18 PM

A simple google would have shown you that my statement was for the most part correct, I am wrong about one thing:

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

Now on to the meat:

http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/Pdf/case-deshaney.pdf

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989). Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)
----

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''
----

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
----

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vo…

Respondent filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him.

Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The District Court granted the town's motion to dismiss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim because a Colorado statute established the state legislature's clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order's recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.

Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6-19.

You're quite right and I'm wrong. However in my reading I have discovered a few other things as well. The first is that breeding the dogs for dog fighting has been continued up to the present time, and later breeders have not been so punctilious about breeding out aggression to humans.

True, but those are generally opposing forces. It's the dogfighters that are maximally concerned with weeding out aggression towards humans, as someone mentioned earlier. Breeders of pit bulls for show and (of course) guarding property are more tolerant of it.

Ironically, show breeding has enhanced aggression in a lot of dogs, because dominant and aggressive dogs have the best posture. My own 13-pound spaniel mix is an example of that; his posture is breathtaking and it goes along with a willingness to massacre any dog larger than himself. (He's also, incidentally, a walking advertisement for the tolerance of pitbulls; he was rescued from a probable life as a bait dog, and he'll run blocks to destroy any pitbull he sees. He owes his continued existence to the fact that, so far, they've never fought back even when he's riding on them, fiercely gumming their necks.)

And as I thought the American version is a somewhat different breed. (Though the loose terminology of "pit bull" rather confuses the issue).

Yeah, it's either one or two breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier plus American Staffordshire Terrier. They pretty much only differ from the English Staffordshire in size, though, and they have an almost identical pass rate on the temperament test mentioned previously.

Germany, amusingly enough, considers all two/three of those breeds to be "pit bulls" and banned them accordingly. The UK Kennel Club fought this bitterly, on the grounds that of course their terrier is a well-bred and well-behaved dog, not like those ferocious American pit bulls.

I had a pit bull when I was a child. Inspired by "Our Gang". One of the best dogs I ever owned. Now again as an adult. He accompanies me most everywhere, coffee shop, bank, he loves to run errands with me. No leash law here in CA, and with him no leash is needed, he follows commands and waits patiently outside the door, greeting people with a wag of the tail. Easy to train, short hair so shedding not an issue, energetic but not freakishly hyper, not skiddish - meaning fear does't provoke "fight or flight." Basically a perfect dog as far as I'm concerned.

Other than the fact that people are so blinded by their fears that insurers won't cover them. But then some don't even cover Dalmations. You know those Dalmations,.. vicious killers they are!

Posted by: Sean D.
>Then why ask the question?
>
>Oh, that's right..because you're TROLLING.

Trolling? Hardly. It was a rhetorical question, because I assumed that nobody would be lame enough to write any of these "the police are bad; they scare me" posts, and then admit to neglecting to have done anything to ensure they wouldn't have to depend on the police.

I hate to have to point this out.

This entire thread seems to be based on one article that provides only anecdotal evidence, is written with emotionally manipulative rhetoric, and is posted on an extremely biased site.

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with out of control police forces. There certainly is. I'm just saying that this article should be held to the same high level of scrutiny as PZ puts any other.

Great work, keep it up.....

You may also find it useful to visit my website: http://www.petsmixonline.com

Blgs r s nfrmtv whr w gt lts f nfrmtn n ny tpc. Nc jb kp t p!!