Is there something wrong with that answer? That is the whole point.
Look, I taken this far enough with you. Let me summarize this and you can have that last word.
You've proven to me even an RF Engineer hasn't the first clue about police matters, criminals or real life events. You have clearly established this and you're likely a closet bleeding heart leftist.
You've actually admitted trained law enforcement dogs should not bite down hard enough to put a suspect in the hospital overnight. Do you have any GD idea how insane that sounds?
You were not at the scene and you have not the slightest clue what happened. Even when told a 12 year old silhouetted in the dark can easily be taken for an adult. You literally ran from that statement.
But you had no problem believing what the criminal accomplices and the criminal attorney alleged. Did ya Mr. Engineer?
The article told ya the cops announced they'd set the dog on the suspect if he did not comply. They always do this Mr. Engineer. Ya know why? Because they know the dog is going to bite the shit out of them so the give the suspect a break and warn what they're about to do. They're hoping the stupid ass criminal gives up and complies with the commands.
But instead of using common sense, you took the word of the suspects criminal defense attorney and the accomplices and swallowed all the BS about how extensive and severe this poor criminal child's injury was. The criminals alleged he was complying. You bought it all convinced it was the cop and his dog who are the bad guys here.
Do you have any idea how f'd up and liberally twisted that way of thinking is?
My advise to you would be stick to RFEngineer, you'll be much better off.
Best of luck to you!
“You’ve proven to me even an RF Engineer hasn’t the first clue about police matters, criminals or real life events. You have clearly established this and you’re likely a closet bleeding heart leftist.”
Really? I think I know it too well, and that is the problem you have with me. You have no idea what underpins the bleeding heart of a leftist - here is a hint: It’s closer to you than it is to me.
“You’ve actually admitted trained law enforcement dogs should not bite down hard enough to put a suspect in the hospital overnight. Do you have any GD idea how insane that sounds?”
No, you claim I said that. You know this but didn’t care to actually quote what I did say. Dishonest.
“You were not at the scene and you have not the slightest clue what happened. Even when told a 12 year old silhouetted in the dark can easily be taken for an adult. You literally ran from that statement.”
Nor were you. The only information I need to know that something is wrong is the 2 or 3 day hospital stay.
It doesn’t matter if the “silhouette” was 12 years old or 32 years old - (though it is more emotional that there is a kid criminal involved). Regardless, the dog needs to be in positive control. You don’t get that. You think that it’s fun to torture suspects. You’re a sick man.
I think that there is a very good chance that the cop was lazy, slow and out of shape and not good at his job and used the dog to compensate. So the kid gets bitten and hospitalized because the cop didn’t have control over the dog.
Why don’t you post a picture of the cop - since you were so eager to post a picture of the wound on the kid. That is all we’ll need to see to know if that is what actually happened.
“But you had no problem believing what the criminal accomplices and the criminal attorney alleged. Did ya Mr. Engineer?”
Again - thats what YOU say. I used information in the report that had not been attributed to the attorney, and I told you that repeatedly. Do you know what that word means? It means the report specifically stated something that (in context) is part of the reporting, NOT a quote from the attorney. You say the reporter lied. You know a thing or two about prevarication don’t you? Yes, you do.
“The article told ya the cops announced they’d set the dog on the suspect if he did not comply”
Ah, you are at it again. Where did I say it was wrong to deploy a dog against the suspect? I never said that. I said that if you are going to deploy a dog you had better be able to control it. That didn’t happen, did it?
“Because they know the dog is going to bite the shit out of them “
That’s now how police dogs are trained. Did you know that? Apparently not.
“You bought it all convinced it was the cop and his dog who are the bad guys here.”
No, I stated the obvious. The cop did not have control over the dog. He was supposed to - he didn’t. You say the doctor lied. Again, you sure do have a thing for throwing that assertion around. Do you know what that word means? It means you called the doctor a liar so he could fill a hospital bed. I doubt that.
“Do you have any idea how f’d up and liberally twisted that way of thinking is?”
Again - liberalism is supported and underpinned by inappropriate use of force, throwing around inappropriate big words, and cussing and fuming when someone won’t kow-tow to your point of view.
YOU are closer to liberal than I will ever be - you are also likely a sociopath, of the very sort that is attracted to (liberal) politics and often police work.
“My advise to you would be stick to RFEngineer, you’ll be much better off.”
Thanks.
Now, back to the facts as I originally observed:
An injury that results in a 3 day hospital stay (or 2 day) is indicative of a handler who does not have positive control over his dog.
If you disagree with that - say why - without claiming a conspiracy of lawyers/doctors/reporters.
Then we’d just likely have agreed to disagree. Far more civil, wouldn’t you say?