Hoorah!! Whilst reading things online this story struck me. Its about time Policy Makers had some common sense and put such a policy in place. After all, we dont want forces to have to pay out hundreds of thousands to innocent people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and dont hear the numerous warnings of dogs barking and who fail to think what might happen if the dog is released.
Seriously, what planet do these people live on? Its like spraying people with water instead of pava, incase it burns their eyes causing them to spontaniously combust on exposure.
Surely the point of a police dog is another level in the conflict resolution model. Whereas people may not be to concerned with getting sprayed, or even hit with a baton, they dont particularly want a dog pouncing on them. Surely by putting a muzzle on the dog its, well, giving the criminals something less to fear.
Sadly, I am not a dog handler so cant say when they would be released onto a suspect, but I strongly suspect its not used for ordinary law abiding people, and more for people who are/will be violent etc. So where is the problem? If the person being bitten has done wrong, then tough, you cant sue. Perhaps you shouldnt have been doing what you were doing to gain such response from a police dog.
Yet another example of people in their 9-5 job making up policies for highly trained frontline officers who undertake extensive training for the unique role.
What are your opinions of this be it in support of this (as you are a criminal and have been bitten) or against it, as you have common sense?
(dont forget the post below which I only posted a few hours ago! Oh you lucky people getting two blogs in a space of a few hours!)
2 comments:
How can a police dog put fear into criminals if it is muzzled?
Stupd beyond belief.
Completely & utterly insane.
The chair-warmers might as well have shut the dog section down rather than introduce this policy; at least then the dogs would not be put at risk of injury or harm by being unable to defend themselves with the only weapon they have - their teeth.
I wonder what the RSPCA makes of this - surely they have an opinion regarding the dogs being put at risk? Not to mention the H.S.E and the additional risk to officers where the dog has not subdued the suspect - I can see the lawyers having a field day with this one the first time an officer is injured due to the lack of effective Dog Unit support.
Have the policy makers got a competition going, "how can we hamper officers in the performance of their duty today"?
What's next? Padded shoes for police horses? Foam covered batons? Velvet lined handcuffs?
Aaaaarrrgghhhhhhhhhh! (I'm trying to be polite.......)
Post a Comment