Quote:
Originally posted by DeviousJ
See, this is kinda the same thing though - you make this leap between 'the dog was set on her' and 'it was justified' by saying 'oh well, they wouldn't have done it unless it was necessary'.
|
I admit that I'm giving a little bit of deference to the officers here. What I'm mainly concerned with is dispelling this notion that the dog "attacked" this girl for no reason. It may be possible that the dog's handler is just a sadist and thought it'd be fun to turn a 150 pound dog on a 110 pound woman in front of hundreds of witnesses for no reason whatsoever. It could also be possible that the dog disobeyed its rigorous training and attacked the girl for no reason. But I think both of those assumptions take a much much bigger leap in logic than the one you say I'm making. I'm with you when you say that the whole thing depends on the circumstances, all I'm saying is that based on this one account we're talking about here I don't see anything that would tend to say this was obvious overkill.
Quote:
|
Do you really not see the difference between cops showing up because you've murdered someone and you deciding to fight them, and a vicious animal suddenly attacking you on a night out and you reacting with a self-preservation instinct? The whole comparison is utterly ridiculous
|
Enough with this "sudden attack" business. This wasn't someone fighting off a wild animal. It was a person resisting a trained police dog. There is a big difference there that you're refusing to recognize.
Quote:
|
I doubt you'd be throwing around ironic quote marks in her position
|
I doubt I'd be throwing around anything. I would have stopped fighting and waited for the dog's handler to come and get it.