Search results

How? You just need the winning side to be libertarian, then you are fine.

That's the thing: these types of people, the order followers, are almost always on the winning side eventually, because the winning side is the side that can give orders. So they will have the numbers.

No, they'll still end up the ones lining people up. They follow orders regardless of if they are good (look at who enforced covid restrictions, and that those that didn't lost their jobs).

Exactly! In the first, the dog is at fault, and you probably put down the dog. In the second, the Handler is at fault, and if the handler is telling it to attack you for a clearly unwarranted reason, the Handler should probably be put down.

I'm very much not treating the police dog like it's special. I'm treating it like any other tool, like a gun. Also, the same thing should apply to a regular dog. If it's trained to be used for security, and it was ordered to attack and did, that's a good, obedient dog. The owner should be the...

If it's an intentional murder (or even attempted murder), death. If it's a cop intentionally abusing authority, death. Just an assualt by a citizen? Not death. In all of those cases, the dog is irrelevant. If you replace dog with a gun or knife, the same amount of punishment is applied (though...

Nothing wrong with execution, just do it as painlessly as possible. But deciding to kill an animal just to do emotional damage is cruel. Cruelty is needless suffering. There's no need for the animal to die: it did nothing wrong. A cop who's so fucked in the head they sic animals on obvious...

No. First, that goes under cruel and unusual punishment. Second, again, the dog did nothing wrong. It operated according to how it's designed. Seriously, you are blaming the gun for the murder. Stop buying into leftist shit and instead go full personal responsibility.

I mean, if they want US soldiers to fire on civilians, the UCMJ would also have been corrupted at this point, and would imprison (or attempt to imprison) those who disobeyed.

It shouldn't matter if the order is legal. A dog can't know legality. The Cop should be put down if he's just siccing dogs on innocent people at random, and the cop should bear any punishment for any illegal attacks generally. You are effectively blaming the gun for the murder. Don't do that...

Yes, I agree. But the issue here is the cops, not the dogs. If something like this happens, cops should be arrested and charged. A dog that was told to sic, and sicced, did nothing wrong. It's not supposed to know about human rights, the handler is.

Okay, to me, your statement was confusing: This is not a clear sentence. If you had said something like " I would have understood. See, I agree with you on nearly everything here. But I don't view police dogs as police but as dogs used by police, because they are not sentient beings. They...

... That's not what your previous sentence implied. Also, neither dog should be put down. The owners should.

The handler wanted the human to be hurt. IDK how to make this clearer to you. The bolded part shows how off you are: First, the dog shown was a trained like a police dog because it was a police dog. Second, it was sicced on someone. Second, no, they don't put down cop dogs that are sicced on...

... They were trained to do it? What do you think police dogs are trained to do? The dog was told 'sic' and released, the dog sicced. The problem here are the cops releasing the dog, not the dog.

Dog did what it was told to do, it doesn't have moral agency. No, the dog should attack the cops before they are fired.

This is highly relevant, especially the juror research. It explains how they managed to get to a conviction outta such he said/she said evidence, and provocation is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt unless laid out in writing, and even to the extent Perry did it, I don't think...

... That's not Qualified Immunity anymore, as it has been described for years. Instead, it would be likely be called something else. And you complain at me for being pedantic? Yes, it would be immunity that is qualified, but it would likely be given a whole knew name if it went through such a...

Somebody shouldn't be talking about kneejerk reactions, and it isn't me. Did you see the "clearly established" part at the beginning of the sentence? How about what the Volokh Conspiracy described it: when they explicitly highlighted (using quotes) the "clearly established" part of the...

No, it's not. You don't seem to know what you are talking about here. Qualified immunity is the clearly established law test. Straight from wikipedia: Or take this post from the Volokh Conspiracy (A highly respected Lawyer blog with authors that have been cited by the Supreme Court): More...