Police raid wrong house, shoot dog (again)

[Thanas]

Indeed, using the military for police work is a big no-no around here. They already get into some trouble if they loan their Tornados with IR-cams to search for lost persons.

What's the issue with that, if you don't mind my asking?

Umm...hello? GERMANY? Take a look at our history. We've got pretty bad experience with the military being used as a police force.
Thus we established in our constitution that the military should not be used within our borders in such a way.

That is not the case. Our experience with police and military was actually pretty good. What people wanted was actually a sharper division between military/civil law/agencies. But this is more of an ideological issue that does not have anything to do with the military ever being used in a police role (indeed, those incidents were pretty rare to begin with).

Also the fact that the military is not trained for police work and it's usage in such a way is unnecessary and dangerous.

That is the real reason.

[Serafina]

Well, i was talking about the perception that "military with powers within the borders=bad thing", however reasoned it might be - as you said, ideological issues. But if you say that wasn't a factor when it was implemented, then i'll take your word for it.

[Thanas]

Well, i was talking about the perception that "military with powers within the borders=bad thing", however reasoned it might be - as you said, ideological issues. But if you say that wasn't a factor when it was implemented, then i'll take your word for it.

Don't get me wrong, the Kapp putsch was very much on the minds of people. That said, the cases where military forces were actually used in police roles were far in between before.

[Ryan Thunder]

Indeed, using the military for police work is a big no-no around here. They already get into some trouble if they loan their Tornados with IR-cams to search for lost persons.

What's the issue with that, if you don't mind my asking?

Umm...hello? GERMANY? Take a look at our history. We've got pretty bad experience with the military being used as a police force.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that you aren't Nazis, and I think you should factor that into your decision-making process. But even so, I can understand that attitude and why the German people would maintain it. I was only referring to that specific scenario.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The problem is of course "Who is going to collect the data? The people under investigation?" It is the classic "Who Watches the Watchers?" problem. Police departments aggressively defend even those police who engage in egregious wrongdoing, what makes anyone think that they will seriously investigate something like capricious dog killing?

Yeah, and then that turns into "Who Watches those that Watch the Watchers?" and expands infinitely because people distrust other people in positions of authority.

I wouldn't be against having a civilian trained to observe high hazard/high profile situations, but only if they were well versed in the realities of police work and why we operate the way we do. However, you and I both know that people would question that person as well and we'd still be in the same place where we are today.

[The Yosemite Bear]

actually the trend started earlier than I mentioned, the first major militerization in the US, was in the 1920s when the post WWI vets and the Prohibition Gangsters began using submachine guns, and other heavy fire power, the police responded in kind.

Now with the rise of far left terrorist groups in the 1960s, Charles Westerfield's sniper actions, and the Munich 1972 Olympics started the formation of Special Weapons and Tactics teams in the police forces both in Europe and the United States. As I said before, the Scarface/Miami Vice series started the next wave of arming up of our police forces, The heavy body armour clad west hollywood bank robbers are often cited by law enforcement as a major turning point in changes to police policies, and the 9-11 tragedy resulted in a large change to police forces, especially with the Department of Homeland Security and certain mercinary private security forces began offering training and better weapons to almost all police forces as part of the war on terror. Right now the Park's police have automatic weapons, and body armour.

[Zaune]

I suppose Britain has a slightly different perspective on military operations within our borders as a result of several decades of out and out guerilla warfare in Northern Ireland.
The fact is, once armed groups get past a certain level of manpower, organisation and funding then police methods are no longer adequate to deal with them; you have to start thinking more like soldiers. And switching between the mindset of an infantryman in hostile territory and a police officer trying to serve and protect at will cannot possibly be easy.

[Uraniun235]

What evidence would you want to be presented if it were you?

As the basis for trial? Solid and hard evidence. As the basis for an investigation? I would imagine that a suitably questionable incident would be sufficient provocation - if someone at work accused me or my co-workers of deliberately destroying their data, I would expect some form of investigation to occur.

If there were a pattern among some officers (or even departments) to unnecessarily destroy dogs, given that dogs can be dangerous (or even lethal) and that potentially hazardous situations leave enormous latitude to the officers experiencing them, what mechanism would both root out the corrupt behavior while protecting the ability of the police to perform their duty without undue risk?

[Dominus Atheos]

If there were a pattern among some officers (or even departments) to unnecessarily destroy dogs, given that dogs can be dangerous (or even lethal) and that potentially hazardous situations leave enormous latitude to the officers experiencing them, what mechanism would both root out the corrupt behavior while protecting the ability of the police to perform their duty without undue risk?

That's simple. Make a policy that dangerous dogs can only be tasered. Then if somebody shoots a dog you can launch an investigation and if the officer doesn't have a damn good reason for using lethal force or has a pattern of using lethal force against dogs they can be brought up on criminal charges.

[Alyeska]

If there were a pattern among some officers (or even departments) to unnecessarily destroy dogs, given that dogs can be dangerous (or even lethal) and that potentially hazardous situations leave enormous latitude to the officers experiencing them, what mechanism would both root out the corrupt behavior while protecting the ability of the police to perform their duty without undue risk?

That's simple. Make a policy that dangerous dogs can only be tasered. Then if somebody shoots a dog you can launch an investigation and if the officer doesn't have a damn good reason for using lethal force or has a pattern of using lethal force against dogs they can be brought up on criminal charges.

Tasering a dog is harder than you realize. To have a taser out means they have no gun. A taser is usually a single shot weapon. You miss, and your getting attacked. While I believe that some cops are certainly abusing their authority to shoot dogs, I am left wondering what sort of alternative their really is.

Because of the issues surrounding innocent bystanders, hitting the wrong house, and animals, I honestly believe that warrants that involve aggressive entry should require extensive background work. Investigate and plan. Provide justification that something needs heavy handed tactics. And if you used heavy tactics on a grandma for 1 ounce of weed, suffer the consequences.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Tasering a dog is harder than you realize. To have a taser out means they have no gun. A taser is usually a single shot weapon. You miss, and your getting attacked. While I believe that some cops are certainly abusing their authority to shoot dogs, I am left wondering what sort of alternative their really is.

It may not be terribly practical, but a lot of SWAT teams seem to be going in armed to the teeth, which seems to mean that they include submachine guns and carbines as a matter of course. I was wondering if, say, the point man couldn't have an underbarrel attachment which consists of a pepperbox style dart launcher loaded with some kind of tranquilizer? Do they have tranqs that will work quickly enough - if not, it could also be an underbarrel can of some seriously heavy mace, which would have the additional application of giving a guy with a gun in his hands an alternative to bullets if he winds up close with a suspect.

Because of the issues surrounding innocent bystanders, hitting the wrong house, and animals, I honestly believe that warrants that involve aggressive entry should require extensive background work. Investigate and plan. Provide justification that something needs heavy handed tactics. And if you used heavy tactics on a grandma for 1 ounce of weed, suffer the consequences.

I agree with you. This kind of thing does nothing to engender confidence in the American police forces, both here and elsewhere.

[Alyeska]

It may not be terribly practical, but a lot of SWAT teams seem to be going in armed to the teeth, which seems to mean that they include submachine guns and carbines as a matter of course. I was wondering if, say, the point man couldn't have an underbarrel attachment which consists of a pepperbox style dart launcher loaded with some kind of tranquilizer? Do they have tranqs that will work quickly enough - if not, it could also be an underbarrel can of some seriously heavy mace, which would have the additional application of giving a guy with a gun in his hands an alternative to bullets if he winds up close with a suspect.

Tranquilizer only works in movies and video games. They have to be dosed to the body weight of the subject AND its species. Different animals react differently. And any dose capable of putting it to sleep within seconds is nearly lethal meaning any fractional change will kill it.

There are a handful of multi-shot technologies available. There is a new multi-shot tazer. There is also a tazer shotgun. Put that thing with a semi-auto shotgun and you could reliably take a dog.

I agree with you. This kind of thing does nothing to engender confidence in the American police forces, both here and elsewhere.

Heavy handed tactics is not a suitable alternative to proper police work. And given the value we place on animals in society today, killing a pet dog is downright cruel. Its emotionally damaging (almost as bad as losing a family member) and certainly a financial burden. If killing or wounding a police dog is a felony, then killing or wounding a family pet should be too.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Tranquilizer only works in movies and video games. They have to be dosed to the body weight of the subject AND its species. Different animals react differently. And any dose capable of putting it to sleep within seconds is nearly lethal meaning any fractional change will kill it.

Alright, but what about the underbarrel mace-can idea?

There are a handful of multi-shot technologies available. There is a new multi-shot tazer. There is also a tazer shotgun. Put that thing with a semi-auto shotgun and you could reliably take a dog.

It might be simpler to arm the point man with a shock prod mounted underbarrel to a shotgun than to futz about with combining the tazing shotgun rounds with semiautomatic shotgun capabilities.

For one thing, the pressures involved in the tazing shotgun round's firing have to be a lot, lot lower than the buckshot or slug you would normally use with a semiautomatic shotgun, otherwise you'd just be killing someone with a spectacularly expensive, fragile and inefficient slug round. That'll kill your semiautomatic capability right there, since the pressure of the taze round won't be enough to cycle the action.

Heavy handed tactics is not a suitable alternative to proper police work. And given the value we place on animals in society today, killing a pet dog is downright cruel. Its emotionally damaging (almost as bad as losing a family member) and certainly a financial burden. If killing or wounding a police dog is a felony, then killing or wounding a family pet should be too.

That is a very good point. If police departments are allowed to come down on those who kill or wound their dogs as if they'd done the same to a human officer, then shootings of dogs should be investigated as stringently as an officer deploying lethal force against a human suspect should be.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen. Cops get to treat their dogs like badge-carrying humans when it comes to coming down on the guys who hurt them because they're the cops and they hate anybody getting the better of them on anything.

[Zaune]

Tasering a dog is harder than you realize. To have a taser out means they have no gun. A taser is usually a single shot weapon. You miss, and your getting attacked.

I'm with you on the rest of your post, but I have to take issue with this. A taser's maximum effective range is what, half a dozen yards? Even without a built-in spot projector like several models carry, hitting a dog that's moving towards you at those ranges with the first round shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of a marksman trained to police standards.

[White Haven]

Wouldn't an underbarrel taser solve the whole 'if you're holding a taser, you're not holding a gun' issue? Obviously that's another piece of equipment to buy, but I expect it would be a quite useful one.

[Ryan Thunder]

Wouldn't an underbarrel taser solve the whole 'if you're holding a taser, you're not holding a gun' issue? Obviously that's another piece of equipment to buy, but I expect it would be a quite useful one.

I don't think its advisable to mix weapons and non-lethal devices like that, as hilarious as some kind of 'taser bayonet' would be.

Now, a taser baton, on the other hand, would at least give the officer a reach advantage.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't think its advisable to mix weapons and non-lethal devices like that, as hilarious as some kind of 'taser bayonet' would be

Why? It gives the officer a non-lethal option to an attacker that while dangerous is not life-threateningly dangerous.

[Aaron]

Theres already a variety of less-lethal rounds available for shotguns. Give an officer a shotgun and some of them, "here, your the dog guy on this raid."

[General Zod]

I don't think its advisable to mix weapons and non-lethal devices like that, as hilarious as some kind of 'taser bayonet' would be

Why? It gives the officer a non-lethal option to an attacker that while dangerous is not life-threateningly dangerous.

There was the case of that BART shooting where the guard went for his taser and wound up getting his gun instead. I could see that being a lot more common if the guy forgets to switch.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Underbarrel weapons are not triggered by the same trigger lever that fires bullets. There's several very good reasons for this.

Basically, an underbarrel device's trigger has the shooter's hand around the gun's normal magazine well, and he fires the underbarrel with a trigger which is mounted on it. It would be quite, quite difficult to say that you intended to go for your underbarrel less-lethal option and instead sprayed hot lead into someone, on the tune of fucking up which of your hands is your left and which is your right.

[Ryan Thunder]

Underbarrel weapons are not triggered by the same trigger lever that fires bullets. There's several very good reasons for this.

Basically, an underbarrel device's trigger has the shooter's hand around the gun's normal magazine well, and he fires the underbarrel with a trigger which is mounted on it. It would be quite, quite difficult to say that you intended to go for your underbarrel less-lethal option and instead sprayed hot lead into someone, on the tune of fucking up which of your hands is your left and which is your right.

As Zod mentioned, they can get confused even when they're entirely separate devices. Mounting a tazer on a gun just seems to me like a recipe for increased gun-use if the user's surprised for any reason.

[Solauren]

Wouldn't non-lethal rounds be a good idea on police raids period? That way, you increase the odds of taking the suspect alive. You'd also limit, if not prevent, the deaths of beings like house pets, small children, innocent bystanders, etc.

Maybe lethal rounds should be limited.

Instead of making someone the 'dog guy with non-lethal rounds', everyone has non-lethal rounds. Except maybe one guy with a gun for dealing with situtations like some idiot firing through a door at the police, or scenarios like that.

Also, doing something like a thermal scan before a raid might be a good idea too. That way, you know where the targets are, what they are doing, and if there is anything you need to look out for before doing a raid (i.e pets, small children). Obviously, you can't do that with every raid, but still, that would help considerably.

[Formless]

Less lethal weapons can also make people more trigger happy, though. It gives cops the feeling they can use force with little consequence, which can lead to situations where they tazer someone when they didn't need to use force in the first place. Never mind that less lethal does NOT mean NON-lethal, or that they don't hurt like a son-of-a-bitch.

[Big Phil]

Are you guys listening to yourselves?

"Non-lethal only" rules for dogs when entering homes? Figuring out how to avoid shooting dogs at (nearly) any cost? You're putting band-aids on sucking chest wounds.

The problem isn't how to avoid shooting family pets. The problem is that there seem to be no consequences for police officers who fuck up and raid the wrong homes, particularly when shooting animals. If they had shot a person during the execution of a raid on the wrong house, there would be an investigation and more than likely a criminal prosecution. Solve THAT problem, and figure out how to prevent the cops from fucking up when deciding which house to raid, and then nobody's pet gets shot by mistake.

[Alphawolf55]

But even if they're raiding the right house, that doesn't always justify shooting a pet dog, there needs to be real consequences for the police when they choose the wrong house, but there also needs to be real consequences for police officers who choose to shoot otherwise friendly and peaceful dogs.