California Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Ban ‘Deeply Racialized and Harmful Practice’ of Police Dogs
The reason? Racism, of course.
Two California lawmakers have introduced a bill to ban the use of police dogs.
The reason? Racism, of course.
“This bill seeks to end a deeply racialized traumatic and harmful practice by prohibiting the use of police canines,” said Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-Perris).
Assemblymembers Corey Jackson and Ash Kalra introduced Assembly Bill 742 last Monday to end what they call “a deeply racialized and harmful practice”.
“Police canines remain a gross misuse of force, victimizing black and brown people. Disproportionately,” said Jackson. “The use of police canines has been a mainstay in the country’s dehumanization, and it’s a cruel and violent history.”
The two assert that the use of dogs produces “lifelong trauma” in individuals who are usually so violent that the use of dogs is required for the safety of the responding officers.
“The use of police canines has inflicted brutal violence and lifelong trauma on Black Americans and communities of color,” Jackson said in the release. “This bill marks a turning point in the fight to end this cruel and inhumane practice and build trust between the police and the communities they serve.”
Injuries caused by police canines made up nearly 12% of the police use-of-force incidents that led to serious injury or death statewide in 2021, according to statistics released by the California Department of Justice.
Black and Latino people accounted for about two-thirds of the use-of-force cases involving canines.
A professional handler explains the bill is a “knee-jerk reaction.”
A retired police K9 handler named Bob Eden, who reportedly trains and consults with police departments all across the United States, told Fox San Francisco that he believes the bill is a “knee-jerk reaction.”
A lot of times we’re dealing with violent people that won’t submit otherwise or wouldn’t be captured otherwise,” Eden reportedly explained.
Not only do police dogs often de-escalate situations, Eden told Fox San Francisco, but they actively deter violence against police officers.
The number of dogs that are on the street reduce the number of assaults on officers and the number of officer involved shootings, which ultimately would also probably save the life of a number of suspects that otherwise would have been on the receiving end of gunfire,” Eden reportedly added.
More reasonable Californians hate the proposed measure.
I believe everybody should leave California ridiculous. You call the cops now in California in LA you get a yoga instructor instead they spent 2 million on it and they try to get away with canine dogs now for the police no defunding the police wow
— Walter Johnson IV (@WalterJohnsonI3) February 19, 2023
On the off-chance this measure actually becomes law, it will just lead to more crime in the areas these two legislators claim that they want to protect.
But given all the racialist drama allowed in the state, I suspect there will be even more legislative insanity to come.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic? He wasn’t sure if there was a dog.
Every dog has its day, but a dog with a broken tail has a weekend.
Bwahaha!
K9’s have proved quite useful in helping police solve crimes up to and o
Including murders. Can California Democrats deal with that? Nahhhh…
I heard about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac.
He lay awake an night wondering if there was a dog.
Just when you think it cant get crazier….
Then, there is the dog we have all seen. They appear very deep in thought. They wonder, “who really IS a good boy”!
“Police canines remain a gross misuse of force, victimizing black and brown people. Disproportionately“
Who disproportionally commit the crimes in America!
Bingo!
Police dogs almost exclusively attack males. Why would that be?
The point of police dogs is a bite instead a shooting.
First time agreeing with BLM. Only Cops, prior to the 90’s, didn’t have the k-9 units. Use the same infantile argument to get rid of paramilitary gear and trucks and “weapons of war”— glock and a baton and a prayer is all they need
Only Cops, prior to the 90’s, didn’t have the k-9 units.
Ummm, when were you born? Cops had canine units way back in the 60s. I think they probably go back before the 1950s. One of the reasons these racists can go to the argument about “racism” is how dogs were used on large groups of people (sometimes riots, other times simple protests) during the civil rights movement.
And the main problem with “police militarization” is the attitude it produces among some police that they are at war with the populace they serve. We saw the results of that attitude with the Tyre Nichols incident (though that attitude was not necessarily brought on just by militarization).
A couple of pics of Democrat Bull Conner’s police force in action (1963),
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e6f16070fe1f09b16437f80b55ed2ea5e43a7561/c=0-51-788-496/local/-/media/2015/04/28/JacksonMS/JacksonMS/635658102235307786-Birmingham-campaign-dogs.jpg
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/authoring/2018/02/25/NCOD/ghows-OH-65f3df17-6643-47ec-e053-0100007fefa6-fe0aa043.jpeg?crop=1990,1125,x0,y72&width=1600&height=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Did I mention he was a Democrat?
Like George Wallace.
I think every one of those dogs needs to pay reparations.
/sarc tag for the humor impaired.
Bhahahaha!
“Injuries caused by police canines made up nearly 12% of the police use-of-force incidents that led to serious injury or death statewide in 2021, according to statistics released by the California Department of Justice.” Note lumping injuries from the mutts with all incidents. I haven’t heard of a K-9 killing any perp. Nasty bites…yes… but even serious injury. Conflation.
The dogs are trained to specifically not go for the throat, against some of the breeds’ better
judgmentinstinct. They try to prevent the dogs from killing anyone, normally.There are quite a number of Civil Rights era photos and videos that would like a word about no police dogs being used in the USA before 1990.
build trust between the police and the communities they serve
Well, understand that trust has to go both ways. If your “community” has a bunch of gang-bangers in it, then you can expect the police won’t trust your community and will want to continue to use effective tools like canine units.
Also, GFY, you racist. (@ Corey and Ash)
Here’s what they really mean:
much as love canines myself, in a leo environment, dogs’ primary function is to protect police officers–after that, due to a canines’ superior hearing, vision and sense of smell, they are better at locating/pursuing a perpetrator (especially in darkness)–there are other attributes they possess but those are the principal ones
that their use could be deemed “racist” is downright laughable–agree with earlier observation and would add ” when a group comprises 13% of the population yet commits nearly 78% of the violent crimes/offenses, is it any wonder the group has dramatically more interactions with leo/ k-9 units? ”
come on
Well, it’s racist because the dog assumes black people smell different.
Something like that.
I know this was tongue in cheek but…
Actually, every single person has a unique scent to a dog. They also have no qualms against odor pungency and aversion, which is why they have no problem going right up to anal glands and sniffing them to identify another dog and its territorial claims.
I had an aunt whose dog seemed to view black people as a threat. I always figured it was because my aunt was afraid of blacks (she lived in East St Louis so it wasn’t completely irrational) and the dog picked up on it.
I’ve been through E St Louis. Wise dog.
Luckily we got out of there when I was still young. When I was a teenager and we wanted to do something crazy dangerous we’d go to East St Louis.
I guess Tom Lehrer (who’s still alive, last I heard) no longer spends Shovuos there.
To Milhouse: I didn’t know he ever did. I didn’t think Lehrer was even the type see the midwest as even existing.
Grizz, enjoy
Milhkusr: thank you! On a road trip back from a job site, a workmate and I broke out in a rousing rendition of the Irish Folksong. My other two workmates remained speechless.
I mentioned the dog issue with a friend. Two kids were walking a trail around Anchorage when a black bear began harassing then… serious stuff… the family dog attacked the bear and the kids escaped. The dog wasn’t killed and got back to them. However, since that bear encounter, the dog snarls and holds its ground when a black person comes by… doesn’t see the difference.
1. Then it’s a good thing it wasn’t a polar bear…
2. So does that mean all blacks smell the same?
All a Polar bear is, is a Cartesian bear with different coordinates.
There’s a history of tracking down escaped slaves with dogs.
But they also use them on escaped criminals, regardless of race.
True and my own anecdotal experience with my black teammates/friends informs me that a generalized fear exists for GPD. My Parents loved them and had them. I prefer Mastiffs personally.
Even though I would explain beforehand about the dogs my friends would flip out, despite the dogs being trained and disciplined. In fairness a pair of GPD sitting and looking at you as if hopefully they will get to ‘play’ with the stranger is intimidating.
I doggy-sat two schutzhund trained guard GPDs that the FBI had required the family to own. Boker and Bill. Boker and a previous Doberman “in house” guard dog. got into an Alpha male fight and Boker smashed through the glass door and tore the doberman apart. Sooo… it was a interesting summer. Biggest threat to me was when they would brush up hard against me and stare … waiting for their Milk Bone Dog biscuit. Yes… I always gave them what they wanted.
If I ever got a dog I’d go for the Belgian Malinois.
alaskabob,
Unless you can match the activity level needed by a Malinois, GPD or other working breed that’s a bad idea, IMO. They thrive on doing the instinctive role of their breeding either in reality or simulated as play which takes a higher level of effort, ability and investment of time from their owners.
I really like Mastiffs. They are naturally protective of their owner and they make multiple perimeter checks daily on the grounds you define for them as the area to be protected. They do it naturally no extensive training needed. Their sheer size and deep bark is intimidating as hell and is definitely a deterrent. A few slightly more advanced commands than owners usually use like ‘drop’ to let them know when to release, ‘come and stay’ at distance v ten feet and you are good. Give them confident and consistent leadership and it’s all golden.
They love ‘their’ people, are fairly smart, very eager to please their owner so training is simple if you are persistent. They can be stubborn so reinforcement training by the owner is required. No slacking off! They do drool though and will attach themselves to you like velcro. Big cuddle bears who are very good with children, the infirm and special needs folks. They don’t go full speed/power with those they recognize as unable to deal with it.
Fully appreciate your points. Same with Huskies….. high energy high intelligence dogs that must be treated well. Anything less is abuse. Biggest issue in Alaska deals with moose and bears. Even the best trained sled team can go bonkers around them. On the other hand, had a interesting interaction with cow moose and new calf. I was getting stuff out of passenger side of truck when cow and calf ambled up beside me… oh boy… I jumped into truck and closed the door. they moved on… an hour later I drove down to the P.O…. the cow and moose were by another house… and…. three dogs where there… everyone was cool… could not believe it… the dogs were mellow… couldn’t care less that moose there. Moose cool. Great sight.
Cali pol with little moxie fun would rewrite bill to replace the phased out police dogs with more co-moon-it’y friendly Piitty-Pats.
…when the gang bangers give up their dogs.
“Injuries caused by police canines made up nearly 12% of the police use-of-force incidents that led to serious injury or death statewide in 2021”
Anything can be made to seem horrible when only one side of the cost/benefit equation is examined.
250,000 people die from medical errors every year in this country, therefore we need to ban doctors, nurses and hospitals right?
Not to mention, phrasing the exact same statistic in just a slightly different way can have a large difference in the impact and implication of the statement.
“Injuries caused by police canines made up less than 12% of the police use-of-force incidents that led to serious injury or death statewide in 2021.”
Just replacing one word from the original quote completely changes the implication of the statement.
When a person uses raw numbers, then the percentages are against them. When they use percentages, the raw numbers are usually insignificant.
One of my current addictions is police bodycam and chase videos on Youtube. They are highly educational. Funny thing is that the fur missiles are rarely launched, and most often their mere presence will effect faster compliance. So yeah, they work.
What this really says is “Police dogs are effective, we don’t like that.”
Precisely.
The police should lose the guns, batons, night sticks, pepper spray, hand cuffs, zip ties, radios, paddy wagons, jail cells, squad cars and all other racist tools. They should use the subways and buses to chase the criminals and apprehend them with butterfly nets. via GIPHY
There’s a germ of truth inside their claim. A weak germ, admittedly. It falls mostly on the drug dogs used by police units *outside* of airports and the like. If a police officer wants to search a car or house and can’t get a warrant (indicating they have a very weak case for a search in the first place), they’ll get a dog to come over and give the area a sniff. I believe these sniffs come in at 100% positive, or at least I’ve never heard of a police K9 unit *not* alerting on a suspect or place, thus giving probable cause for a search.
In terms of suspects resisting arrest, I suspect the dogs *reduce* the total number of injuries on the suspects’ behalf (as well as the officers) because Violent Bob may be willing to fight with Officer Nancy, but when Officer Fido gets involved…
I was a criminal prosecutor for 20 years. Any law enforcement officer using a dog to search for drugs knows how to make the dog “alert”, thus enabling the search. Sad but true.
And, Mr. Former Prosecutor, how were such specious cases handled?
I’m not being snide;,I want to know how these were handled.
The classic example is the tale of Clever Hans, a horse who could count. You would give Hans a second-grade arithmetic problem, and Hans would tap out the answer with his hoof. No one knew how he did it, not even his owner. Finally, it was determined that the horse was a damn lie detector — his owner would unconsciously tense up when he reached the correct answer, so Hans would stop.
The cop WANTS the dog to alert when he suspects you. The average dog is clever enough to figure this out and give his owner what will make him happy.
Something tells me I have a long wait hearing back from our former prosecutor.
It’s even more subtle than that. Dogs do things for dog reasons, not human reasons. The mere fact that the alerting dog likely gets rewarded with pets and affection means the dog will alert to get it.
If there were drugs found, such as marijuana, then maybe dismissed. Or a deferred judgment with probation and no conviction. Each case is specific based on the facts. If something more, like a significant amount of cocaine or meth or fentanyl, well, maybe the dog was right this time.
Thank you.
It all comes down to the handler. A dog can be trained to legitimately detect smells, whether it be drugs, explosives or dead bodies.
A dog can also be easily trained to “alert” in response to the handler’s actions rather than actually detecting any substances.
With poor trainers and handlers this can even be accidental…but my guess is that’s rare.
What’s ridiculous about it is that this “evidence” can be used to “justify” a search, as if the use of a dog is infallible and incorruptible. For unscrupulous cops it’s just a way around that pesky 4th Amendment.
The bottom line is that working dogs are just tools and, like any tool, in unscrupulous hands can be misused. Cost/benefit. We don’t ban screwdrivers just because they can be used to stab people or pry open locks.
With poor trainers and handlers this can even be accidental…but my guess is that’s rare.
Klugel Hans would like a word.
Wow, you mean he could talk too?! That was a clever horse!
Very pessimistic. A true neigh-sayer.
“Should I have said DiMaggio?”
Drug dogs are trained to recognize subtle signals from their handlers. Pillars of the Community and their families don’t have drugs. The stranger with a car the department wants or needs, the dog “alerts” and a throwdown baggie is “found”.
Dogs don’t have to be trained to recognize body language. Unless a good handler goes to a great deal of trouble to prevent it, if the handler expects drugs to be in a specific location, the dog will see that and alert. It’s easier than sniffing out drugs.
DIEversity
There is something more basic involved here. The laws themselves are very anticriminal. For the Progressives to really reduce crime statistics would be to repeal large portions of the criminal code. Brilliant!
Have you been missing the actual news?
Here in Colorado, with a Democrat governor, House, and Senate we have changed the laws and regulations for corrections to make it normal for what we would consider the most dangerous criminals to be placed in minimum security or in community corrections. From which they escape and commit more crimes. The rules [and governor appointed Parole Board] have changed so that parole is functionally automatic regardless of behavior or public risk. And after they are caught and convicted of felonies committed while on parole, they are given parole again almost immediately. One of the larger local TV stations in southern Colorado is doing a series on it and it is annoying the Democrats. Of course, with elections now matters of ballots generated instead of votes cast, there is no changing things.
Subotai Bahadur
And all of that is a big reason they want to take away the law-abiding citizen’s firearms.
Because it tends to cure recidivism.
Police bears.
No more injuries, just lot of defecating criminals.
And FAR less noise.
So the old joke about grizzly scat would change from “and have little bells in it” to “and have electric ankle bracelets in it”?
Please! We DO have a sense of taste!
Unless you’ve caught Wuhan Disease.
Don’t run – and the police dogs won’t chase.
“Good boy, Rinnie!”
“Arf, arf!”
People enjoy playing Whack a Mole for its own sake — it’s not supposed to change, let alone solve anything.
Conveniently, there’s a world full of stuff people do. The Perennially Indignant will never run out of things to smugly object to. Beats working.
Hmmm. Ash Kahlra. A name to note. He is one of the Assemblymembers presenting this bill. He used to represent District 2 in South San Jose. He was my city council member and I had occasion to work with him in my community. He presented himself as MUCH more politically moderate back then. He never did a lot for us – we were just a stepping stone on his way to state office. He is ambitious and I believe he wants to play on a more national level. I’ve noticed any legislation he supports tends to be very progressive. He is smart, patient, careful and I don’t trust him.
Just a personal observation.
Too bad that there is no way to get him out of office or keep him from moving on to the national level.
Subotai Bahadur
And what proportion of criminals did they account for?
Why don’t they just ban Blacks and brown people from disproportionately doing crime? Oh, wait … there are laws for that, but they don’t obey them. We’re all supposed to pretend that we don’t daily see Blacks shoplifting, looting, beating Asians, and so forth … it’s insanity.
So, dogs are racist?
Yet another reason I am a cat person.
Police tigers? That’s a thought.
Why not? They’ve already earned their stripes.
Do you know what actually creates lifelong scars that we should care about: crime. We should care far more about the victims of criminals than the criminals themselves. And if the perpetuators of criminal acts weren’t statically more likely to be black and brown, police methods wouldn’t affect them more than other groups. It’s the simplest concept in the world: don’t commit criminal acts and you won’t interact with the police.
“… build trust between the police and the communities they serve.”
Yeah fine but the police are not there to serve the criminals, nor should police be expected to build trust with criminals unless it’s a way to catch them. Criminals should be scared of police, deterred by them, overwhelmed by them.
The commies have succeeded with racial division amongst humans, and you can thank the first half white president for getting that ball rolling. Now it’s time to work on the animals.