California New Bill Would End the Use Of Police K-9 Units

[progressive hunter]

When it happens then worry about it. But remember leftist predictions are wrong 95% of the time. That's why mankind will still be on this planet in seven years regardless what AOC had to say about it.

should I go on or do you get my point??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

its amazing once you look how many examples you can find,,

It's just too bad you couldn't find one to back up your claim. Your videos are of mishaps by the dogs and not police using them for petty crimes.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's just too bad you couldn't find one to back up your claim. Your videos are of mishaps by the dogs and not police using them for petty crimes.

my claim is what could happen and my examples show the unjustified flaws and violence that are happening,,
I havent even got into drug sniffing dogs that have a less than 50% success rate,,

you might think different if it was your child or wife that got mauled by mistake but for some reason I doubt even that will change your mind,,

 

[JusticeHammer]

I saw a guy once that got chewed by the police dogs. They couldn't routinely cause that much damage to suspects and keep their jobs but if the dogs rip a guy to shreds it's somehow OK.

Good dogs.

 

[22lcidw]

It's all well and good until the cops use the dogs for no reason or threaten to. Anyone in that situation who did no wrong do not forget it. I have no issue using dogs on the abusive cops families.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

who wants to go to jail??

Certainly not the criminal who made the conscious decision to run from a K-9 unit.

 

[progressive hunter]

Certainly not the criminal who made the conscious decision to run from a K-9 unit.

DUH!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

my claim is what could happen and my examples show the unjustified flaws and violence that are happening,,
I havent even got into drug sniffing dogs that have a less than 50% success rate,,

you might think different if it was your child or wife that got mauled by mistake but for some reason I doubt even that will change your mind,,

These are animals, not humans. Large dogs can flip out from time to time. Owners are not necessarily responsible owners. It happens. We don't outlaw dogs like Rottweilers because one attacked a kid down the street. Some cities have or tried to, but not on a national level.

There are over 50,000 police dogs in the US today. From time to time one will lose it's mind and yes, attack innocent people. That's no reason to get rid of police dogs when you think of all the good they do for law enforcement. These dogs are selected to be police dogs due to their breading of high intelligence, but nothing is guaranteed.

But back to the OP, CA is pretty much ran by Democrats and Democrats are criminals. They've taken measures or wanted to take measures to make things better for the criminal, that's their only motive in proposing such a law. Blacks are renown for their extreme fear of violent dogs, and that's why they want to get rid of them.

 

[progressive hunter]

These are animals, not humans. Large dogs can flip out from time to time. Owners are not necessarily responsible owners. It happens. We don't outlaw dogs like Rottweilers because one attacked a kid down the street. Some cities have or tried to, but not on a national level.

There are over 50,000 police dogs in the US today. From time to time one will lose it's mind and yes, attack innocent people. That's no reason to get rid of police dogs when you think of all the good they do for law enforcement. These dogs are selected to be police dogs due to their breading of high intelligence, but nothing is guaranteed.

But back to the OP, CA is pretty much ran by Democrats and Democrats are criminals. They've taken measures or wanted to take measures to make things better for the criminal, that's their only motive in proposing such a law. Blacks are renown for their extreme fear of violent dogs, and that's why they want to get rid of them.

so youre OK with what fauci did with his dogs since they are just animals???

dont forget most all police dogs are under constant control because they will attack just about anyone that crosses their path,,


you have your opinion I have mine,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so youre OK with what fauci did with his dogs since they are just animals???

dont forget most all police dogs are under constant control because they will attack just about anyone that crosses their path,,


you have your opinion I have mine,,

Yes, this is how those dogs are trained to use against suspects that fight with police, run from them and try to hide, or attempt to discard evidence. They are a valuable asset to police and the public.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, this is how those dogs are trained to use against suspects that fight with police, run from them and try to hide, or attempt to discard evidence. They are a valuable asset to police and the public.

then theres the dbl standard of if my dog bites someone even if its an intruder is killed but the cops dog gets a pass,,,
another case of the people not allowed to have a vicious dog but the government can,,

 

[WEATHER53]

Looter rioters rapists murderers and assaulters should Never suffer the pain of a dog bite-Lib101

 

[progressive hunter]

Looter rioters rapists murderers and assaulters should Never suffer the pain of a dog bite-Lib101

what makes you think a dog wants that nasty taste in his mouth??

they might sue for abuse and trying to poison them,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

then theres the dbl standard of if my dog bites someone even if its an intruder is killed but the cops dog gets a pass,,,
another case of the people not allowed to have a vicious dog but the government can,,

I don't know of any law where you can't have a vicious dog no matter who you are.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't know of any law where you can't have a vicious dog no matter who you are.

when did I say there was a law like that???

between you and moonglow you should be able to read at least one sentence,,
he just pulled the same stupid leftist tactic,,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

when did I say there was a law like that???

between you and moonglow you should be able to read at least one sentence,,
he just pulled the same stupid leftist tactic,,,

Maybe you have a problem writing. What else did you mean when you wrote this?

another case of the people not allowed to have a vicious dog but the government can,,

Okay, so if you didn't mean a law that prohibits people from having a vicious dog, then what did you mean?

 

[progressive hunter]

Maybe you have a problem writing. What else did you mean when you wrote this?



Okay, so if you didn't mean a law that prohibits people from having a vicious dog, then what did you mean?

and if you bothered to read the entire comment you would understand what I meant by that,,,

same problem moonglow had,, he edited the comment which changed the context,,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and if you bothered to read the entire comment you would understand what I meant by that,,,

same problem moonglow had,, he edited the comment which changed the context,,,

I didn't edit a thing. I quoted you and posted it. Reading the sentence before it changes nothing. The problem is people like you post shit and when called out on it, you can't explain yourself.

 

[progressive hunter]

I didn't edit a thing. I quoted you and posted it. Reading the sentence before it changes nothing. The problem is people like you post shit and when called out on it, you can't explain yourself.

only posting half of what I said and then commenting on just that is the definition of editing out of context,,

no where did I say there was a law against anything,, in fact I was specific to it being a CASE of a dbl standard based on the act of a dog not possession of one,,

you argue like a typical leftist,,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

only posting half of what I said and then commenting on just that is the definition of editing out of context,,

no where did I say there was a law against anything,, in fact I was specific to it being a CASE of a dbl standard based on the act of a dog not possession of one,,

you argue like a typical leftist,,,

So how did the previous sentence change the second? It didn't.