Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work  (Read 3704 times)

dthom71

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2007, 01:20:29 PM »
lmao

Funny, I always thought it was "titties," not "tiddies."  Oh well.  You say tomato, I say tomato - well, it's hard to convey the meaning online, but you know. 


I thought it was titties too. When I was copying that statement from Denny Cranes' "must do before thirty" list, i considered changing the spelling but i figured it was a cute pet name that he gave his mothers' titties. I didn't want to insult the perv by not acknowledging his full fantasy.

Hahaha.  I gotta hand it to you.  You have the determination of a chihuahua. 

And the intellect of one. 



"And the intellect of one."?? It's interesting you bring up intelligence. Where I come from, our sentences have verbs dumbass. Stop playing on mommies' computer and go play in the street.

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2007, 02:31:27 PM »
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

One of the differences is the motive.  Regardless of your political beliefs, the police are supposedly there to protect citizens.  When they use dogs, these dogs are supposed to help them fulfill this aim.  People who fight dogs are doing it just because they're sadistic and like to watch animals maim and kill each other.  Putting dogs in danger to protect humans is more legitimate than putting them in danger because it's just what gets you off.

Also, I admittedly don't know much about dogs who are employed by police forces, but I don't think they're being drowned, electrocuted, fed glass, ripped apart by other dogs, etc.  I guess they might die in the line of duty, but they're not suffering the constant torture that fighting dogs are.

In re: the bolded:  How in heaven's name can bomb sniffing dogs go in by themselves?  You realize they'd have to be accompanied by a human, right?  Bomb sniffing dogs don't *repalce* humans; they aid humans because they have better noses than we do.

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2007, 02:36:00 PM »
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.


This actually isn't true.  Dogs are used by police to track (and apprehend) criminals.  Not bomb dogs, no, because... bomb dogs are used to detect bombs.  Also, the dogs aren't commanded to injure or kill the people they're chasing, but a lot of times people are injured in the process (imagine what happens when a dog clamps his mouth around your leg and you try to pull free).

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2007, 02:43:57 PM »
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.



PETA is insane.  They hate humans moreso than they care about animals.  They just don't want humans to ever use animals for their benefit.  Are you against rescue dogs, seeing eye dogs, pets, zoos, circuses?

Did you hear about that story involving Knut the polar bear in Germany?  Knut was a polar bear cub whose mom abandoned him and one of the zoo's animal trainers started caring for him and feeding him from a bottle so that he wouldn't die.  Anyway, once PETA got wind of the situation they demanded that the zoo put him down because polar bears aren't supposed to be nice and cuddly, they're supposed to be ferocious killers, and this human raising him ruined his polar bear instinct.  They also claimed that he wouldn't get along well with other polar bears (somehow overlooking the fact that polar bears are solitary animals.)

They are just nuts.  SMH@ PETA.

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2007, 02:48:33 PM »
Can't you just see little Macgyver-esque dogs defusing the bombs?


http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/prsrelea/fy01/049.htm

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/04/0913dog.html

http://www.atf.gov/kids/bombdog.htm

artard, those dogs detect the bombs, they don't defuse them.  And they're accompanied by handlers. 

I never said dogs defuse bombs Mr. lover of boy-man relations. And so what if the dog is accompanied by a handler, the officer makes the decision to die, the dog is murdered. 


Um you said that police send dogs in instead of going in themselves.  How the hell could a bomb dog do anything without humans there?

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2007, 03:13:27 PM »
lmao

Funny, I always thought it was "titties," not "tiddies."  Oh well.  You say tomato, I say tomato - well, it's hard to convey the meaning online, but you know. 


I thought it was titties too. When I was copying that statement from Denny Cranes' "must do before thirty" list, i considered changing the spelling but i figured it was a cute pet name that he gave his mothers' titties. I didn't want to insult the perv by not acknowledging his full fantasy.

Hahaha.  I gotta hand it to you.  You have the determination of a chihuahua. 

And the intellect of one. 



"And the intellect of one."?? It's interesting you bring up intelligence. Where I come from, our sentences have verbs dumbass. Stop playing on mommies' computer and go play in the street.

lol this is great.  And ironic.  Where I come from, sentences have only one punctuation mark too.  And people have only one mother.  And a comma would have been after "verbs."  And...yeah, I'll stop there.  I look forward to your undoubtedly amusing response, probably involving a sex organ :).

dthom71

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2007, 03:46:17 PM »
Can't you just see little Macgyver-esque dogs defusing the bombs?


http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/prsrelea/fy01/049.htm

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/04/0913dog.html

http://www.atf.gov/kids/bombdog.htm

artard, those dogs detect the bombs, they don't defuse them.  And they're accompanied by handlers. 

I never said dogs defuse bombs Mr. lover of boy-man relations. And so what if the dog is accompanied by a handler, the officer makes the decision to die, the dog is murdered. 


Um you said that police send dogs in instead of going in themselves.  How the hell could a bomb dog do anything without humans there?


I'm sure it's possible. If they can do it with drugs, I'm sure they can send a dog alone to find bombs. The dog barks when it finds something. But that's really beside the point. In both circumstances, the dog is subject to harm. Even if it's used to find criminals and not bombs, the dog's life is still in danger.

dthom71

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2007, 04:04:34 PM »
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

One of the differences is the motive.  Regardless of your political beliefs, the police are supposedly there to protect citizens.  When they use dogs, these dogs are supposed to help them fulfill this aim.  People who fight dogs are doing it just because they're sadistic and like to watch animals maim and kill each other.  Putting dogs in danger to protect humans is more legitimate than putting them in danger because it's just what gets you off.

Also, I admittedly don't know much about dogs who are employed by police forces, but I don't think they're being drowned, electrocuted, fed glass, ripped apart by other dogs, etc.  I guess they might die in the line of duty, but they're not suffering the constant torture that fighting dogs are.

In re: the bolded:  How in heaven's name can bomb sniffing dogs go in by themselves?  You realize they'd have to be accompanied by a human, right?  Bomb sniffing dogs don't *repalce* humans; they aid humans because they have better noses than we do.


Some dogs don't experience constant torture. Lots of dogs win every fight quickly and without harm. And some owners don't kill their dog-fighting dogs for losing, nor do they electrocute or do any of that other stuff you mentioned. All cops aren't angels. Some may abuse the dog for not performing like it should. You've basically stated that it is ok to train an animal for use in harmful situations. That is as long as it's helping society. It's also beneficial to society for the owner of a dog-fighting dog to make money by using his trained dog to fight other dogs. The owner stays off of welfare. I don't agree with that logic.

Smokey

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2007, 04:23:16 PM »
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

One of the differences is the motive.  Regardless of your political beliefs, the police are supposedly there to protect citizens.  When they use dogs, these dogs are supposed to help them fulfill this aim.  People who fight dogs are doing it just because they're sadistic and like to watch animals maim and kill each other.  Putting dogs in danger to protect humans is more legitimate than putting them in danger because it's just what gets you off.

Also, I admittedly don't know much about dogs who are employed by police forces, but I don't think they're being drowned, electrocuted, fed glass, ripped apart by other dogs, etc.  I guess they might die in the line of duty, but they're not suffering the constant torture that fighting dogs are.

In re: the bolded:  How in heaven's name can bomb sniffing dogs go in by themselves?  You realize they'd have to be accompanied by a human, right?  Bomb sniffing dogs don't *repalce* humans; they aid humans because they have better noses than we do.


Some dogs don't experience constant torture. Lots of dogs win every fight quickly and without harm. And some owners don't kill their dog-fighting dogs for losing, nor do they electrocute or do any of that other stuff you mentioned. All cops aren't angels. Some may abuse the dog for not performing like it should. You've basically stated that it is ok to train an animal for use in harmful situations. That is as long as it's helping society. It's also beneficial to society for the owner of a dog-fighting dog to make money by using his trained dog to fight other dogs. The owner stays off of welfare. I don't agree with that logic.


Is this flame?

Violence is inherent to dog fighting.  The fighting itself is violent and the animals have to be tortured to make them violent.  Dogs who are treated kindly and cared for well aren't as likely to fight to the death as dogs who have been abused all their lives. 

Yes I'm sure some cops are mean to their dogs but dog fighting is *systemic* violence and cruelty. 

I never argued that it is ok to train animals to be used in harmful situations.  I was just pointing out your horrible errors in reasoning. 

Your argument that dog fighters make money and stay off of welfare  is just... bogus.  People also make money off of selling kids into slavery.  Is this ok too?

If this is flame, A+.

dthom71

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Dog Fighting vs. Police Work
« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2007, 04:42:56 PM »
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

One of the differences is the motive.  Regardless of your political beliefs, the police are supposedly there to protect citizens.  When they use dogs, these dogs are supposed to help them fulfill this aim.  People who fight dogs are doing it just because they're sadistic and like to watch animals maim and kill each other.  Putting dogs in danger to protect humans is more legitimate than putting them in danger because it's just what gets you off.

Also, I admittedly don't know much about dogs who are employed by police forces, but I don't think they're being drowned, electrocuted, fed glass, ripped apart by other dogs, etc.  I guess they might die in the line of duty, but they're not suffering the constant torture that fighting dogs are.

In re: the bolded:  How in heaven's name can bomb sniffing dogs go in by themselves?  You realize they'd have to be accompanied by a human, right?  Bomb sniffing dogs don't *repalce* humans; they aid humans because they have better noses than we do.


Some dogs don't experience constant torture. Lots of dogs win every fight quickly and without harm. And some owners don't kill their dog-fighting dogs for losing, nor do they electrocute or do any of that other stuff you mentioned. All cops aren't angels. Some may abuse the dog for not performing like it should. You've basically stated that it is ok to train an animal for use in harmful situations. That is as long as it's helping society. It's also beneficial to society for the owner of a dog-fighting dog to make money by using his trained dog to fight other dogs. The owner stays off of welfare. I don't agree with that logic.


Is this flame?

Violence is inherent to dog fighting.  The fighting itself is violent and the animals have to be tortured to make them violent.  Dogs who are treated kindly and cared for well aren't as likely to fight to the death as dogs who have been abused all their lives. 

Yes I'm sure some cops are mean to their dogs but dog fighting is *systemic* violence and cruelty. 

I never argued that it is ok to train animals to be used in harmful situations.  I was just pointing out your horrible errors in reasoning. 

Your argument that dog fighters make money and stay off of welfare  is just... bogus.  People also make money off of selling kids into slavery.  Is this ok too?

If this is flame, A+.

That's not my logic, it's an example of yours. You said that police use dogs to protect citizens. You also acknowledge that a dog's life is in danger while protecting those citizens. To support a policeman's use of trained dogs to protect citizens is to support an animal being trained to be in harms way. Hence my example of your faulty reasoning about owners fighting their dogs for money. Which I believe to be wrong. Simply because a good reason exists to place a dog in danger, doesn't make it right. Whether that reason is  to fight crime or to pay the rent. Fighting crime is also inherently violent. If it weren't, it wouldn't be "fighting crime", it would be "approaching crime with the hope that it will stop". It's just as aggressive.