Do you believe that a criminal should be punished for killing a police dog in self defense?

by **kalvin71** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:20 am

NOTE: I am NOT asking whether it is against the law or what the penalties are for killing a police dog, but your honest opinion on what YOU believe should happen in a on a case like this. SO PLEASE, toss out your biased conventional ideas and look at it from your personal perspective. Also, when use the term "self defense," do not define it by legal terms, but as in the protection of yourself from bodily harm.

A police dog attacks the criminal, as trained, but in self defense the criminal kills the dog in an effort to avoid harm. The criminal who kills the dog is charged with harming or possible murder of a law officer (a status reserved for humans). The dog is not a human being and many are killed by drivers in motor vehicles everyday and do not suffer punishment. However, for some reason the law applies differently to a dog with a badge.

I do not believe it is okay to murder dogs or any other animal by any unconventional means, but I believe that it is justifiable to say that a human (i speak for the criminal) is more important than a dog and does not deserve to be punished for an act of self defense on an animal; even in the event that this kind of scenario follows a crime. Also, why should it seem feasible to oblige an ANIMAL and give it equal status as an enforcer of the law and is without moral constraints, but whose actions are measured ONLY by limited training.

by **wal49** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:22 am

I agree with your point humans are more important than dogs and I do agree with you that I don't believe it's okay to murder dogs or any other animals. That being said, we do elevate dogs to the level of "officer of the law" which is therefore not reserved only for humans as you have stated. Therein lies the problem with your question. Dogs are given status as officers, doesn't matter that they are dogs, they are police officers performing their duty. If you kill an officer that was trying to subdue you after you have committed a crime (as I said before the dog was award officer status) in my opinion you deserve to be punished.

Don't commit the crime in the first place and you won't have to worry! If a police dog is chasing down your sorry as$, you probably deserve it.

by **gideon** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:36 am

If the dog is truly harming a person and that person cannot stop the dog in any way other that killing it then I don't see why the person being attacked should be penalized for this.

Of course, the average police dog (as far as I know) is trained to subdue but not harm a suspect, so it would be hard to prove the dog was harming the person.

by **chay** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:45 am

No way. All they have to do is listen to the officers instructions. The dog is trying to take control. Not kill him.

We should respect these dogs as officers.

by **kyledyr** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:49 am

Let's call this a "hate" crime too.. Probably called the dog a "******."

by **tai38** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:54 am

No. All the criminal has to do is not be a criminal and K9s wont chase his a$$ down

by **claudius** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:58 am

The dog is not just a dog. He is not just a police dog. He is a trained police OFFICER. If a criminal kills a human police officer, he is charged with murder. It should be the same for canine officer.

If the criminal cooperates with the dog, it stops attacking and just holds the person there. If he fights, the dog is trained to accelerate force until the criminal stops resisting. This is the same thing the human is taught. Accelerated force until the person cooperates. The handler is in control of the dog, in that he tells the dog to attack or to return to the handler. His training is not "limited" but very extensive, as it the handlers. The dog is not attacking with the intent to kill. Thus, the criminal is not in imminent danger and can not invoke the laws of self defense.

A criminal who kills the dog is probably not trying to save his life, he is trying to get away. The same can be said for a criminal who kills a cop. He is usually not in any real danger of being killed himself. He is trying to get away with his crime.

There is a world of difference between a stray dog being hit by an unsuspecting motorist and a canine officer doing his job and getting killed. The person who hit the stray would not have done it and never intended to cause the dog injury. The criminal is acting out of self interest and would kill anyone or thing that gets in his way.

Police officers, canine or human need to have equal protection in their jobs.

by **lazaro94** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:01 am

Good question. I believe, however, that the act of killing a police dog should be treated as a crime only if it is shown that the criminal was in fact a criminal in the first place. What I mean is this; if the perpetrator is found to be innocent of whatever crime he/she is accused of committing in the first place then the act of killing a police dog is made with the person being in an "innocent" state of mind, and therefore lethal defense is felt to be justified, and is not made with malicious intent. If the accused turns out to be guilty then it can be assumed he/she was not merely acting self defense but was attempting to escape justice violently, or otherwise. Like if somebody is pulled over by a police car and they try to run (breaking the law) and then they run several red lights and put people in danger, they are culpable for those actions. But if somebody is running red lights because they are running for their life from a would-be murderer, then the acts of running red lights is an act of self defense. I hope I am not being too confusing. Just my opinion.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: