Yes I can easily find multiple instances of the police abusing thier powers.
I think the question relates to this incident.
Yes I can easily find multiple instances of the police abusing thier powers.
I'll wait and see what the investigation finds out.I think the question relates to this incident.
Allegedly!How would I phrase what? You’re suggesting that police dogs are set free to charge into crowds and cause carnage. You’re asking me to provide a phrase for something which doesn’t happen.
Allegedly!
Oh OK, i stand corrected then, as you have never seen it happen it must never happen.I’ve been in this job nearly thirty years. Been to literally hundreds of incidents where police dogs have been deployed. And the only time they are let off the lead is to assist in the pursuit of a fleeing suspect and only then after very unambiguous warnings.
Never have I seen one set free into a crowd. Not once.
Of course. Where I dissent from the forum consensus is the notion that you lose all human rights the instant the authorities deem you have committed an offence of any sort or that injury to an alleged offender is something to celebrate.
BiM described what happens. At some point the police officer "tells" the dog to attack an individual. I described that as "setting the dogs on", a phrase you objected to. That seemed valid to me but since you objected to it I'm interested in how you would describe it. I'm not trying to catch you out, just genuinely interested. I'll let it drop if you don't want to answer.
So was it a bobby that bit that woman in Bristol ? or was the dog just being friendly ....sorry, whether the dog was "set on her" or whatever phrase you do deem appropriate, the dog attacked her, disproving your statement that police dog handlers do not tell their dogs to attack anyone.Police dog handlers do not tell their dogs to attack anyone. So there is no phrase to attach to it. Can I be any clearer?
I think you need a "priceless" back at you for that obfuscation.
Secondly the use of the word attack has been attributed to one poster by another yet I cannot find that reference.
BiM described what happens. At some point the police officer "tells" the dog to attack an individual. I described that as "setting the dogs on", a phrase you objected to. That seemed valid to me but since you objected to it I'm interested in how you would describe it. I'm not trying to catch you out, just genuinely interested. I'll let it drop if you don't want to answer.
So was it a bobby that bit that woman in Bristol ? or was the dog just being friendly ....sorry, whether the dog was "set on her" or whatever phrase you do deem appropriate, the dog attacked her, disproving your statement that police dog handlers do not tell their dogs to attack anyone.
I think the question relates to this incident.
How about "defend" if the woman in question was trying to kick the dog.Jeez, what term would you use to describe the act of a dog biting someone causing such injuries, if not "attack"?
Jeez, what term would you use to describe the act of a dog biting someone causing such injuries, if not "attack"?
That's not proving the Police do as they please. Protecting themselves is not abuse of their powers, they didn't open fire on the bunch of scrotes.Yes I can easily find multiple instances of the police abusing thier powers.
As you’ve clearly no concept regarding how dogs behave, particularly police dogs, then I’m not going to engage with you any further.
.............................
If you, or anyone else, think that’s how it works then this discussion has run its course.