Originally posted by Corganist:
Where in this thread did anyone say the dog 'went crazy' and attacked her? It's pretty obvious that if a police dog attacks someone and the handler isn't attempting to restrain it that the dog is following a command given by the handler to do so. That's the whole point - WAS IT AN EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE BY THE POLICE THERE? You were saying that they wouldn't have set it on her or had 3 people tackle and kick her or whatever for no reason, then backed this assumption up by saying 'she was struggling with the dog, therefore resisting arrest, so she must have deserved it'
I'm not refusing to recognize that a trained police dog is different from a wild animal, you're refusing to recognize the fact (which I thought was blatantly obvious) that people having the dog set upon them aren't going to deal with it rationally, have full trust in the dog's training, have faith in the police's motives or whatever. Dogs maul and kill people all the time, even 'trained' ones. I mean people are scared of little spiders for christ's sake, and they're utterly harmless.
Why am I even having to explain this? Wasn't the picture enough? Have you even had a dog set upon you to know you'd be thinking clearly and against your own natural reflexes and instincts in that situation? Where's that smiley