Keeping Your Dog Safe from Law Enforcement - Page 9

How many of you would want to be a LE officer?

No disrespect to you Blitzen, but there are a lot that WANT to be a LEO. BUT, everyone who wants to be one can not!

Gigante, it's nice to toss up a graph, (not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing).  It appears the website (I didn't go to it?) is FBI/GOV? I don't know if it is thee FBI but usually our statistics come from Department of Justice, (DOJ) so maybe we can see what they have if that site doesn't stem from that Agency?

Also, you must understand that when compiling statistics that they are never true due to MANY factors. First, crimes are categorized as "Part I", "Part II". Also, what might be a felony in this state over here might not be a felony over in that state. Large agencies compared to smaller agencies or even one man agencies. Statistics are only good if all are documented and documented correctly. Some agencies don't keep track, some agencies mis miscategorize them, some agencies don't acknowledge them. Example; a LEO is assaulted. Technically doesn't matter if it's 1st degree or second degree he/she was assaulted. This LEO didn't get hurt or hurt enough to require medical attention so an "assault on a police officer" was never filed. You take that and times that by however many across the country and now you can see how statistics can be misleading. And that could be for ANY incident/situation. I'm not totally rebutting your graph but it's not 100% relevant to the topic we are debating?

Another thing you're failing to acknowledge; If a LEO gets hurt and we'll strictly talk about Bitten by dog(s) cases. Any injury that takes a LEO off the streets is a manpower problem. Which in turn POSSIBLY jeopardizes the well being/safety of your Town, City, County or State. Plain and simple. So, the injury doesn't have to be MAJOR. Also, you have to look at a possible injury that could render that LEO not being able to do his/her job ever again. That is where the saying "Stay safe/Officer safety is paramount. That way you can go home after your shift" Also, with a K( that dog is a VALUE ABLE asset to that Department/Agency. And worth thousands/tens of thousands of dollars.  Next it is a Police Officer itself and some states it is a FELONY to attempt to harm or kill a Police K9. So an officer can not and will not let a strange dog harm his K9 partner. No matter how wrong it might appear. Each situation dictates.  

You don't have to be killed by a dog (a LEO) to lose your job as a LEO/not being able to perform it.



 



 

It takes a special type of person to make a good LEO, Alboe. I am very happy that not everyone who wants to can. That's as it should be. Given the lack of respect given to most LEO's and that they place themselves in harms' way 24/7 for the very  people who critisize them the most, I just don't get why anyone would want to do it. Like being the President of the US or volunteeing to go to Afghanistan or Nam back in the day.  I guess they must hold fast to the good things they can do  and never mind the naysayers.

alboe2009

Gigante, it's nice to toss up a graph, (not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing).  It appears the website (I didn't go to it?) is FBI/GOV? I don't know if it is thee FBI but usually our statistics come from Department of Justice, (DOJ) so maybe we can see what they have if that site doesn't stem from that Agency?

The fbi website is located at : 

http://www.fbi.gov

Hence, I was not trying to mislead you with a mock fbi site. Come on. Im fairly sure, and please correct me if you learn im wrong, that the FBI is under the DOJ and most of the info is collectted by the FBI and then given to you, via the DOJ. But you may cut out the middleman with the link provided above. Again this my understanding, I could be wrong. 

Also, you must understand that when compiling statistics that they are never true due to MANY factors.

Statistics are always the red hair step child. Poor statistics, always being beaten and never claiming itself supreme. What they are is a focusing tool, without them your running in circles. Spank that child at your peril. 

Another thing you're failing to acknowledge; If a LEO gets hurt and we'll strictly talk about Bitten by dog(s) cases. Any injury that takes a LEO off the streets is a manpower problem. Which in turn POSSIBLY jeopardizes the well being/safety of your Town, City, County or State. Plain and simple. So, the injury doesn't have to be MAJOR. Also, you have to look at a possible injury that could render that LEO not being able to do his/her job ever again.

I think what you are trying to get across is very, relevent, but im going to have to agree with the director on this.

The COPS Office understands the importance of dog-related incidents and encounters for the public, law enforcement, and dog owners alike. With the number of dog fatalities by law enforcement on the increase, as well as concerns for officer safety, law enforcement officers must advance beyond automatically using their weapons when encountered by a dog.

Controling being hurt on the job by firing your weapon, in many cases, is to dangerous.  I acknowledge that lessoning injury time out's, equals more man power on the street. But the automatic use of weapons on dogs by many officers is a greator danger to life and injury, then the benefit. Besides being a straight PR hose, which police will always lose!  Thats two reasons, (I hope) why Jim does not shoot dogs willy nilly. The facts in my opinon, and it appears the director's as well, are undeniable. Lets look to the facts again,

The overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required. Fewer than 2 percent of the individuals visiting an emergency room complaining of a dog bite require hospitalization.

Its a bit disturbing that officers here cant agree with a general idea that you should not be killing things, unless they need to be killed. 

Kill peoples pet's when there is no other choice, kill peoples pets when a human life is at risk, kill peoples pets because you made a split second choice and it was wrong choice, but split second.

Care to explain how any farmer, hunter, citizen, or police officer worth anything cant agree with this?

Seems like a no brainer. 
Anyone?

Its a bit disturbing that officers here cant agree with a general idea that you should not be killing things, unless they need to be killed.  

LOL, how ridiculous.  Why do I bother?  Ok, I'm done, it is hopeless.   Thank you for banging my head on desk, it was just what I needed. 

 

Jim you specifically stated and included that post as a ridiculous and unintelligent  statement. Now all of a sudden its ridiculous that you dont agree with it. No need to bang your head.

Dont infer incorrectly that it means anything other then what it says. Its disturbing that you and others find that statement ridiculous and unintelligent and cant agree with it. I dont understand that. 

 

 

You also accidentally forgot some. For clearer context. The inference to spell it for you, since you having trouble is... you cant even agree on something so simple as whats stated here thats, disturbing!

Its a bit disturbing that officers here cant agree with a general idea that you should not be killing things, unless they need to be killed.  Kill peoples pet's when there is no other choice, kill peoples pets when a human life is at risk, kill peoples pets because you made a split second choice and it was wrong choice, but split second. Care to explain how any farmer, hunter, citizen, or police officer worth anything cant agree with this?

The problem, (at least for me), is when we get on these topics there are some that like to bring to the table an array of topics/information and pretty much it's like a snowball going downhill which later turns into an avalanche. In my eyes so much is taken place it seems we are losing our focus.

I don't have the luxury to sit and dredge up articles, graphs and such. (I'm not belittle ling you or talking down on you for being able to do that) Some individuals just taking every comment defensively. that's not the intention. Some individuals will make a comment or bring up information/not always facts or relevant and I'm sitting there asking myself WTF? Or it went over my head. I'm honestly trying to figure out what most, who have something constructively to say, are really try to say on ? what ? subject?

For the most part, are most saying that LEOs are shooting their/someone's pets in the "criminal" aspect? Shooting their/someone's pet what, on purpose? Shooting their/someone's pets because they are afraid of a dog/any breed/any size? Shooting their/someone's pet because they can?

I don't understand when someone can make a comment, be animate about it and want the rest of whoever is reading to believe it only because they stated it. It doesn't work that way. And if Slam or I or someone else says different or we can back it up with experience, first hand knowledge a few have problems with it. When I stated a few pages back that at times it appears personal it can't be looked at it any other way. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Facts, experience always trumps hearsay. Now I'm not saying everything that is said by some is hearsay. Some need to relax a little, attempt to stay calm but realize that when you open the door with attacks and jabs that you'll get some in return. It doesn't have to be an us against them mentality. What some forget to realize or just flat out don't want to but as LEO you are TRAINED in a bazillion things and one of the top areas is dealing with the many types of personalities/people/cultures/mentalities/ we meet on a daily basis. Literally hundreds/thousands and after some years tens of thousands. The average person does not and will not for one get that type of training or experience that type of experience. It's just not possible. Not an argument  just saying how it is. So for some to sit their and think let alone say we are close minded or act, think just that way, and it happens to be the wrong way just isn't possible.

Gigante, where did the comment, (excuse me, I'm not too computer savvy so I can't do a lot of the I guess pasting/boxing your comments so I have to type most if not all of it) but when you say "It's a bit...........killing things, unless it needs to be killed". Did I miss something because I tried to reread all the posts and I didn't see where that took place? And the next box? Did someone else say that or are you saying that? And that last question? Sorry, but over my head, I don't understand?



 

Alboe, nice try but it is time to just let it go.

Ya, just forget it. Nobody here cares about property rights and the dogs anyhow. RIP dogs.

10-4!