Headbutting Dogs
Well it's finally happened, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I read with horror in the newspapers that North Wales Police are going to muzzle their dogs to protect suspects from bite injuries. Instead the dogs are going to be trained to butt the suspect!
Why? You might ask yourself, I certainly did. Well of course it's to safeguard the suspects human rights and to reduce compensation claims.
Lets deal with his human rights first. To have put himself in a situation in which he comes into conflict with the Police the suspect must have already have violated someone elses human rights but hey, the victims don't count in this golden age of 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime'. The victims are not going to be awarded legal aid to complain about the system that has left them injured or afraid to walk the streets of their own country. There's no money for that, there's lots of 'outreach' projects that need funding and they must take priority. The rest of us will just have to work a lot harder so that we can pay more taxes to fund the benefits and Legal Aid system. It would be just awful if the yobs of this world had to take any responsibility for anything, (sorry, sorry, very insensitive of me. I forgot, we're not allowed to use the word yob in case it lowers their self esteem). Sod it. I don't do sensitivity.
If our suspect commits a crime and comes into contact with a Police dog and handler in any situation there's one thing that is constant and that we need to remember. If he gets bitten it is due to his behaviour during the interaction between handler and suspect. In essence the suspect has CHOSEN to be bitten. If an aggressive person approaches a handler and his dog he will be told to back off. If he continues to advance he will be bitten and that is how it should be. If the dog is muzzled how is he to protect himself, his handler and the public? In a major public order situation once the crowd realise that the dog is muzzled he ceases to be a major asset and becomes a liability. I have personal experience of such a situation. A very large group of drunken and violent serving and ex-soldiers were out of control, the army wanted to deal with the situation themselves and turned out the guard which included a dog and handler however the dog was muzzled and the handler was refused permission to remove it. Both dog and handler were jostled and taunted and the dog was kicked. I got my dog from the van and as soon as the mob saw his teeth they found urgent need to be elsewhere, end of problem. In situations where the dog works away from his handler such as chasing a fleeing offender or engaging an armed criminal he does so without a collar so that when he makes contact there is nothing for the offender to get hold of. With a muzzled dog we give the offender the perfect handle to hold the dog at bay or even injure or kill him. It would be so easy to hold the muzzle with one hand and stab with the other. A hell of a price to pay for being stylish. A Police dog handler will in every event 'challenge' a suspect before deploying his dog. He is given every chance to comply and only if he keeps on running, refuses to put the weapon down or in some other way poses a threat to public safety will the dog be sent. Even then if he stops before the dog reaches him, the dog will not bite but circle and bark to contain the suspect until the arrival of the handler. To say that his human rights have been infringed is a nonsense. Before deploying his dog now under 'HumanRights Policy' the handler is supposed to ask himself six questions including "Are there human rights issues involved in what I am about to do?"; "Would the restrictions to an individuals rights be proportionate to the legitimate aim I hope to achieve?": and, (my favourite) "Have I documented my decision-making process?" I would suggest that they add another question "How do I remove this knife that someone has planted in my ribs while I was documenting my decision-making process?"
Compensation. There's a word that will bring a smile to a criminal's face. They know that if they complain about almost anything and ask for less than £5000 they will be paid off even if as in almost all cases the allegation is wholly false or, even worse, they admit the offence but still complain. The policy seems to be, probably following Home Office guidelines, that in cases of £5000 or less it is cheaper to pay out than to defend the case in court even if the good guys win. The reason of course is that the criminal will get legal aid (that's you and me paying) and the Police side will be paid for out of taxes, (that's you and me again). The sheer effrontery of these people is amazing "I was trying to stop the Police arrest a friend (at an affray where machetes had been waved) I kicked a Police dog and he bit me" What happens to the complainant? Is he charged with Assault on Police, Cruelty to animals, Obstructing Police or Threatening Behaviour all of which he admitted? Of course not, the Crown Prosecution Service deem it not in the 'Public Interest'. The Officer is on the other hand, taken to a custody suite in a Police Station and interviewed under caution by a Superintendent and Detective Sergeant over allegations of assault (because we must be seen to be accountable). There then follows a wait of some months with the threat of prosecution hanging over the Officer before eventually it is decided that there is no case to answer. If only someone had some guts and decided that the next ten spurious claims would be defended whatever the cost then we would see an end to this milking of the system.
My hope is that one day operational Police Officers will be given a say in deciding operational policies. So often decisions are made by people who flit from department to department, moving up a rank with each move. They talk of business plans but forget that the business they are in is called Policing and their shareholders are the British Public not politically motivated minority pressure groups. They need to be reminded that nobody has to be arrested and that nobody has to be bitten. But, if you break the Law and take on a Police dog you are very stupid and the outcome will not be in doubt.
Why? You might ask yourself, I certainly did. Well of course it's to safeguard the suspects human rights and to reduce compensation claims.
Lets deal with his human rights first. To have put himself in a situation in which he comes into conflict with the Police the suspect must have already have violated someone elses human rights but hey, the victims don't count in this golden age of 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime'. The victims are not going to be awarded legal aid to complain about the system that has left them injured or afraid to walk the streets of their own country. There's no money for that, there's lots of 'outreach' projects that need funding and they must take priority. The rest of us will just have to work a lot harder so that we can pay more taxes to fund the benefits and Legal Aid system. It would be just awful if the yobs of this world had to take any responsibility for anything, (sorry, sorry, very insensitive of me. I forgot, we're not allowed to use the word yob in case it lowers their self esteem). Sod it. I don't do sensitivity.
If our suspect commits a crime and comes into contact with a Police dog and handler in any situation there's one thing that is constant and that we need to remember. If he gets bitten it is due to his behaviour during the interaction between handler and suspect. In essence the suspect has CHOSEN to be bitten. If an aggressive person approaches a handler and his dog he will be told to back off. If he continues to advance he will be bitten and that is how it should be. If the dog is muzzled how is he to protect himself, his handler and the public? In a major public order situation once the crowd realise that the dog is muzzled he ceases to be a major asset and becomes a liability. I have personal experience of such a situation. A very large group of drunken and violent serving and ex-soldiers were out of control, the army wanted to deal with the situation themselves and turned out the guard which included a dog and handler however the dog was muzzled and the handler was refused permission to remove it. Both dog and handler were jostled and taunted and the dog was kicked. I got my dog from the van and as soon as the mob saw his teeth they found urgent need to be elsewhere, end of problem. In situations where the dog works away from his handler such as chasing a fleeing offender or engaging an armed criminal he does so without a collar so that when he makes contact there is nothing for the offender to get hold of. With a muzzled dog we give the offender the perfect handle to hold the dog at bay or even injure or kill him. It would be so easy to hold the muzzle with one hand and stab with the other. A hell of a price to pay for being stylish. A Police dog handler will in every event 'challenge' a suspect before deploying his dog. He is given every chance to comply and only if he keeps on running, refuses to put the weapon down or in some other way poses a threat to public safety will the dog be sent. Even then if he stops before the dog reaches him, the dog will not bite but circle and bark to contain the suspect until the arrival of the handler. To say that his human rights have been infringed is a nonsense. Before deploying his dog now under 'HumanRights Policy' the handler is supposed to ask himself six questions including "Are there human rights issues involved in what I am about to do?"; "Would the restrictions to an individuals rights be proportionate to the legitimate aim I hope to achieve?": and, (my favourite) "Have I documented my decision-making process?" I would suggest that they add another question "How do I remove this knife that someone has planted in my ribs while I was documenting my decision-making process?"
Compensation. There's a word that will bring a smile to a criminal's face. They know that if they complain about almost anything and ask for less than £5000 they will be paid off even if as in almost all cases the allegation is wholly false or, even worse, they admit the offence but still complain. The policy seems to be, probably following Home Office guidelines, that in cases of £5000 or less it is cheaper to pay out than to defend the case in court even if the good guys win. The reason of course is that the criminal will get legal aid (that's you and me paying) and the Police side will be paid for out of taxes, (that's you and me again). The sheer effrontery of these people is amazing "I was trying to stop the Police arrest a friend (at an affray where machetes had been waved) I kicked a Police dog and he bit me" What happens to the complainant? Is he charged with Assault on Police, Cruelty to animals, Obstructing Police or Threatening Behaviour all of which he admitted? Of course not, the Crown Prosecution Service deem it not in the 'Public Interest'. The Officer is on the other hand, taken to a custody suite in a Police Station and interviewed under caution by a Superintendent and Detective Sergeant over allegations of assault (because we must be seen to be accountable). There then follows a wait of some months with the threat of prosecution hanging over the Officer before eventually it is decided that there is no case to answer. If only someone had some guts and decided that the next ten spurious claims would be defended whatever the cost then we would see an end to this milking of the system.
My hope is that one day operational Police Officers will be given a say in deciding operational policies. So often decisions are made by people who flit from department to department, moving up a rank with each move. They talk of business plans but forget that the business they are in is called Policing and their shareholders are the British Public not politically motivated minority pressure groups. They need to be reminded that nobody has to be arrested and that nobody has to be bitten. But, if you break the Law and take on a Police dog you are very stupid and the outcome will not be in doubt.
Labels: Dogs-in-the-news, Police-dogs
posted by Robin Glover at
Sunday, October 15, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home