They weren't just walking into some random apartment that had the door open. They were serving a warrant.
The guy was also known for carrying weapons.
Sure, I understand that. But obviously he's not the only resident of the house, as someone else answered the door and there were children present. Not everyone in a suspect's house is necessarily a threat. Just because you see "movement" in a suspect's house doesn't mean that the attack dog should be unleashed.
Again, I understand the officers were in a difficult situation. You're going after a guy with warrants for some not so nice stuff. I have no problem with them doing what they need to do to protect themselves.
But releasing an attack dog? The dog is going to beat you to the target. Even though it's trained to "hold" the suspect there until assistance arrives, the manner in which it does so is with its mouth. It's going to cause harm to someone even if it's not "attacking," per se.
So, you likely won't be able to identify the dog's target until after it's already been bitten (unless, of course, you plan on outrunning the dog, identifying the target, and calling the dog off before it ever "holds" the target). To me, that's like shooting when you see movement without first identifying it.
Of course, this is all speculation based upon the wording of the article. Again, if the police did actually identify the "movement" as an adult male retreating to the back of the apartment, then yes, they were definitely in the right to release the dog. But if they just saw "some movement" as the article vaguely states, and their first response is to send a dog to "hold" (bite) that movement, then that seems irresponsible to me.
But that may just be me...
17 Replies
1910 Views