Dog Fighting vs. Police Work

[dthom71]

Im not sure if this subject has been brought up already but has anyone considered the differences between dogs trained for fighting and dogs trained for police work? In my opinion, it's basically the same thing. Both situations force dogs to train. The owners in both situations train the dogs to either kill or be killed. ( Kill either a criminal or another dog. Killing the criminal is actually worse, in my opinion). The owners in both situations place the animal in potentially harmful situations. Ex: somebody calls in a bomb threat.--Police: send the dog in, I'm not about to die.--can anyone explain to me how it's any different? Does the law state that only officials trained to mistreat animals can do so?  Dog fighting is not uncommon; it happened all the time around my neighborhood. Bottom line, blacks do it, its dog fighting. Whites do it, its police work. Leave Mike Vick alone

[Roman815]

Im not sure if this subject has been brought up already but has anyone considered the differences between dogs trained for fighting and dogs trained for police work? In my opinion, it's basically the same thing. Both situations force dogs to train. The owners in both situations train the dogs to either kill or be killed. ( Kill either a criminal or another dog. Killing the criminal is actually worse, in my opinion). The owners in both situations place the animal in potentially harmful situations. Ex: somebody calls in a bomb threat.--Police: send the dog in, I'm not about to die.--can anyone explain to me how it's any different? Does the law state that only officials trained to mistreat animals can do so?  Dog fighting is not uncommon; it happened all the time around my neighborhood. Bottom line, blacks do it, its dog fighting. Whites do it, its police work. Leave Mike Vick alone

You clearly gave little thought to either situation and have instead decided to create a theory based on racial stereotypes. I don't know how you did on the LSAT but your reasoning is faulty. First, you make the false assumption that everyone who participates in dog fighting is black and that every police officer is white. Secondly, you falsely assume that police work is the same as dog fighting since, in your mind, training a dog is training a dog, no matter what it's trained for. Using this logic, a dog that visits patients at a hospital or helps disabled people is the same as one that fights. Thirdly, you've done no research and don't realize that the police don't train dogs to "kill or be killed". They use dogs to either sniff for items or to intimidate criminals. Dogs are not used to attack people. If they were used for such a purpose, you'd see many lawsuits.

When was the last time you've heard or seen a dog kill a criminal? Never. I'm certain that the only time you've seen a police dog attack someone was when reading about the civil rights movement. Fourthly, the police use robots and bomb squads to defuse bombs, not dogs.  You also forgot to mention that the police use dogs to protect and to serve the public. They keep their dogs in good condition and don't use them to fight. People who participate in dog fights do so for pleasure and make sure to mistreat their dogs. You are clearly a bigot and a flamer who doesn't belong in law school.

[Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!]

Im not sure if this subject has been brought up already but has anyone considered the differences between dogs trained for fighting and dogs trained for police work? In my opinion, it's basically the same thing. Both situations force dogs to train. The owners in both situations train the dogs to either kill or be killed. ( Kill either a criminal or another dog. Killing the criminal is actually worse, in my opinion). The owners in both situations place the animal in potentially harmful situations. Ex: somebody calls in a bomb threat.--Police: send the dog in, I'm not about to die.--can anyone explain to me how it's any different? Does the law state that only officials trained to mistreat animals can do so?  Dog fighting is not uncommon; it happened all the time around my neighborhood. Bottom line, blacks do it, its dog fighting. Whites do it, its police work. Leave Mike Vick alone

You clearly gave little thought to either situation and have instead decided to create a theory based on racial stereotypes. I don't know how you did on the LSAT but your reasoning is faulty. First, you make the false assumption that everyone who participates in dog fighting is black and that every police officer is white. Secondly, you falsely assume that police work is the same as dog fighting since, in your mind, training a dog is training a dog, no matter what it's trained for. Using this logic, a dog that visits patients at a hospital or helps disabled people is the same as one that fights. Thirdly, you've done no research and don't realize that the police don't train dogs to "kill or be killed". They use dogs to either sniff for items or to intimidate criminals. Dogs are not used to attack people. If they were used for such a purpose, you'd see many lawsuits.

When was the last time you've heard or seen a dog kill a criminal? Never. I'm certain that the only time you've seen a police dog attack someone was when reading about the civil rights movement. Fourthly, the police use robots and bomb squads to defuse bombs, not dogs.  You also forgot to mention that the police use dogs to protect and to serve the public. They keep their dogs in good condition and don't use them to fight. People who participate in dog fights do so for pleasure and make sure to mistreat their dogs. You are clearly a bigot and a flamer who doesn't belong in law school.

Police Dogs are not used to attack people.  ahahahah.  and police only serve and protect too, right?  I agree with everything except that and your last sentence. 

[dthom71]

You clearly gave little thought to either situation and have instead decided to create a theory based on racial stereotypes. I don't know how you did on the LSAT but your reasoning is faulty. First, you make the false assumption that everyone who participates in dog fighting is black and that every police officer is white.


1. The post was not about race cracklover it was about dogs USED for fighting and dogs USED for police work. You're taking this far too literally. Only a crackhead would assume that all blacks participate in dog fighting and/or that all police are white. And I cant even begin to imagine the mental challenges facing the type of person who would assume that one was implying that all blacks participate in dog fighting and/or that all police are white. Exercise a little critical thinking, will you?


Secondly, you falsely assume that police work is the same as dog fighting since, in your mind, training a dog is training a dog, no matter what it's trained for. Using this logic, a dog that visits patients at a hospital or helps disabled people is the same as one that fights


2. I never said police work [IS] the same as dog fighting, because that would mean that they are exactly the same. I said that they were basically, or fundamentally the same. I also never said "training a dog was training a dog". I was referring to the forced training of animals alone. But yes, A dog trained to care for the blind and a dog trained to fight are the same in that they both are animals forced to train.


Thirdly, you've done no research and don't realize that the police don't train dogs to "kill or be killed". They use dogs to either sniff for items or to intimidate criminals. Dogs are not used to attack people. If they were used for such a purpose, you'd see many lawsuits.

3.. So its safe to assume that if i were attacking a cop, the K-9 would sit quietly and watch his "partner" die? I guess it would be silly for me to think that a dog that can intimidate, can also bite when called upon or signaled to.



You also forgot to mention that the police use dogs to protect and to serve the public. They keep their dogs in good condition and don't use them to fight. People who participate in dog fights do so for pleasure and make sure to mistreat their dogs. You are clearly a bigot and a flamer who doesn't belong in law school.


4. So you assume that fight-dogs aren't taken care of? (you sure assume a lot, what did you get on that portion of the lsat. I'm still an ug and have yet to take it)

Listen youngster, its not a question of the police dog protecting and serving, its about whether its ethical to force train a dog AND subject it to potential harm. Just because a dog is USED to serve and protect, that still shows a blatant disregard for the animal and its safety.

[Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!]

You clearly gave little thought to either situation and have instead decided to create a theory based on racial stereotypes. I don't know how you did on the LSAT but your reasoning is faulty. First, you make the false assumption that everyone who participates in dog fighting is black and that every police officer is white.


1. The post was not about race crackerlover it was about dogs USED for fighting and dogs USED for police work. You're taking this far too literally. Only a crackhead would assume that all blacks participate in dog fighting and/or that all police are white. And I cant even begin to imagine the mental challenges facing the type of person who would assume that one was inferring that all blacks participate in dog fighting and/or that all police are white. Exercise a little critical thinking, will you?


Secondly, you falsely assume that police work is the same as dog fighting since, in your mind, training a dog is training a dog, no matter what it's trained for. Using this logic, a dog that visits patients at a hospital or helps disabled people is the same as one that fights


2. I never said police work [IS] the same as dog fighting, because that would mean that they are exactly the same. I said that they were basically, or fundamentally the same. I also never said "training a dog was training a dog". I was referring to the forced training of animals alone. But yes, A dog trained to care for the blind and a dog trained to fight are the same in that they both are animals forced to train.


Thirdly, you've done no research and don't realize that the police don't train dogs to "kill or be killed". They use dogs to either sniff for items or to intimidate criminals. Dogs are not used to attack people. If they were used for such a purpose, you'd see many lawsuits.

3.. So its safe to assume that if i were attacking a cop, the K-9 would sit quietly and watch his "partner" die? I guess it would be silly for me to think that a dog that can intimidate, can also bite when called upon or signaled to.



You also forgot to mention that the police use dogs to protect and to serve the public. They keep their dogs in good condition and don't use them to fight. People who participate in dog fights do so for pleasure and make sure to mistreat their dogs. You are clearly a bigot and a flamer who doesn't belong in law school.


4. So you assume that fight-dogs aren't taken care of? (you sure assume a lot, what did you get on that portion of the lsat. I'm still an ug and have yet to take it)
Listen youngster, its not a question of the police dog protecting and serving, its about whether its ethical to force train a dog AND subject it to potential harm. Just because a dog is USED to serve and protect, that still shows a blatant disregard for the animal and its safety.

I think the main point is there are benefits to society by training police dogs that you dont get out of training pitbulls to fight.  so even if both were equally horrific to the dogs, which I doubt, police dogs would be looked at differently because they are seen as beneficial

[dthom71]

I think the main point is there are benefits to society by training police dogs that you dont get out of training pitbulls to fight.  so even if both were equally horrific to the dogs, which I doubt, police dogs would be looked at differently because they are seen as beneficial.






So by that logic it's ok to put dogs in harms way as long as you have a good reason. Tell that to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Anything wrong with a man training a dog so that it could win money to feed the mans' family? That benefits society because he doesn't have to sponge off of tax payers through the welfare system.

[PSUDSL08]

So by that logic it's ok to put dogs in harms way as long as you have a good reason. Tell that to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Anything wrong with a man training a dog so that it could win money to feed the mans' family? That benefits society because he doesn't have to sponge off of tax payers through the welfare system.

You can use this faulty logic to justify pretty much any illegal money making enterprise. Is there anything wrong with the major coke dealer? He's just trying to feed his family after all, and at least he's not on welfare! That poor bank robber just needed to put food on the table... And let's be honest here, Vick's worth over $100 million. Breeding dogs for fighting is an expensive enterprise, not selling a dime bag here and there to make enough to put food on the table. If the masterminds behind these dog fighting rings are "smart" enough to organize an underground gambling enterprise, they're certainly smart enough to earn an honest living.

You're also comparing dog fighting and the training of police dogs on the premise that the end results may be similar: (1) the dog dies a painful death (2) another life form may be injured by the dog. At the end of the day, the human life is more important than the life of an animal. Police trained dogs help to protect the lives of innocent civilians...the fact that 1/10,000 times, they maim a perpetrator who is attacking their partner is worth the risk. Also, if a dog dies a brutal death in the "course of duty" for the sake of protecting the public, this is justified. After all, there are humans doing the same thing. On the other hand, dog fighting does not serve the social welfare other than providing economic incentives for those in the business, and providing "excitement" to spectators.

I think the thing you're missing in "defending" Vick is this. I can rationalize the dog fighting for him on many levels...there's some skill involved in breeding dogs, and gambling is also a source of excitement and entertainment for many. I can also rationalize killing the losing dogs as cutting out a "business expense." But have you asked yourself why Vick chose to quickly and relatively painlessly shoot some losing dogs in the head while choosing to electrocute and hang others? There's no other way to rationalize this other than he wanted to punish the losing dogs because they didn't perform up to his standards. You don't see cops killing their dogs because they improperly sniffed for drugs when they weren't there, or failed to protect them from a perpetrator.

[I am Penny Lane]

Fourthly, the police use robots and bomb squads to defuse bombs, not dogs. 

I just had the funniest picture of a german shepard bent over a bomb using little tweezers to cut the yellow wire and save the day.

[Stand under my Umbrella ella ella, aye!!]

I think the main point is there are benefits to society by training police dogs that you dont get out of training pitbulls to fight.  so even if both were equally horrific to the dogs, which I doubt, police dogs would be looked at differently because they are seen as beneficial.






So by that logic it's ok to put dogs in harms way as long as you have a good reason. Tell that to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Anything wrong with a man training a dog so that it could win money to feed the mans' family? That benefits society because he doesn't have to sponge off of tax payers through the welfare system.

we also torture animals when we test for certain medicines etc...our society has determined whats appropriate and acceptable in harming animals.  doing it for pitbull fights is unacceptable.  we have welfare programs.  People have decided they would rather you take welfare than fight pits to breed your family, so that scenerio you described really doesnt do anyone any favors.  we harm animals for police dogs or medicine, or cosmetic products even, and it is acceptable.  even though PETA protests every group I named, they are radicals about it.  our society views pit bull fighting and police dogs differently, and we should.

[Denny Crane]

Im not sure if this subject has been brought up already but has anyone considered the differences between dogs trained for fighting and dogs trained for police work? In my opinion, it's basically the same thing. Both situations force dogs to train. The owners in both situations train the dogs to either kill or be killed. ( Kill either a criminal or another dog. Killing the criminal is actually worse, in my opinion). The owners in both situations place the animal in potentially harmful situations. Ex: somebody calls in a bomb threat.--Police: send the dog in, I'm not about to die.--can anyone explain to me how it's any different? Does the law state that only officials trained to mistreat animals can do so?  Dog fighting is not uncommon; it happened all the time around my neighborhood. Bottom line, blacks do it, its dog fighting. Whites do it, its police work. Leave Mike Vick alone

You're retarded.


Police dogs are trained to stop on command, and police officers don't kill police dogs that don't win fights.  In fact, police dogs aren't in fights.  Yes, they're trained to attack, but they're not trained to kill (people or other dogs).

Stop being a retard, please.