Originally posted by DeviousJ
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 was talking about the need for her to be physically restrained by the officers. I wasn't saying that the act of fighting off the dog was in and of itself enough to justify everything that happened before and after. I highly doubt the K9 officer told the dog "Go make that girl resist arrest so we can tackle her!" Unless we're just talking about 3 or 4 totally unhinged officers who just happened to be in the same place at the same time and decided to attack the first person they saw, then I'd think that it would be logical to assume that there was some legitimate reason the police wanted this girl stopped before they even thought about using the dog.
I guess I'm just not seeing why we're even having this discussion. My point is that there is nothing presumptively
unreasonable about using a dog and three officers to subdue a small female. We don't know anything about what drove the events, but I'm just not understanding why anyone would recount the incident as some kind of proof of obvious police overkill. Its just not that cut and dried. It could very well be an incident of excessive force, but I think it would take an unusual set of circumstances for that to be the case.