维托

2023年3月4日,

默塞德县副治安官柯蒂斯唤醒和k - 9维托,一位波兰Gonczy波兰语的狗,在巴尔博亚体育训练中复杂的他,2023年2月7日,星期二。培训是国家警察侦探犬协会的一部分man-trailing培训和认证研讨会。实地考察,为期一周的项目包括课堂教学和评估小组与处理程序和高级讲师。(图片由汉斯Gutknecht洛杉矶每日新闻/ SCNG)发表:|更新:2023年3月4日上午6:06加州萨克拉门托-一个新的法案,该法案禁止警察抓捕嫌疑人的使用人群控制狗或产生了异常大量的关注其可能通过的可能性很小。但它给我的印象是一个案例研究为何立法机关完成任何物质极少。“警察狗的使用一直是一个主要的常数不人道,残酷的虐待黑人和有色人种,“根据该法案。”(P)中心狗是结转从黑暗的过去。”,无疑,而是处理问题进行有针对性的方法,该法案的作者似乎有意让更广泛的思想观点。议会法案的反对者742的Assemblymmembers科里杰克逊D-Riverside,和火山灰卡尔拉,nancy何塞,机会描述测量作为典型国会精神失常。描述该法案为“最新醒来歇斯底里,“保守的专栏作家罗布·史密斯说,“事实是,狗——无论左翼激进分子会试图让你相信,不能种族歧视。” More rationally, Fresno Police Chief Paco Balderrama argued that “strong accountability already exists in most law enforcement agencies that do not allow for the use of K9s in low-level arrests, non-violent arrests, or for crowd control.” That rebuttal focuses on the real question: Are police agencies using their dogs in a responsible manner? In 2020, the Police Executive Research Forum released a detailed report offering guidance for canine units. In 2013, I reported on a court case involving Sacramento police who were chasing a suspect who hid in a tree in an innocent family’s backyard and released the dog. As I wrote, “Police dogs are trained to bite and hold suspects, but they can’t distinguish between law-abiding citizens relaxing with friends and police suspects. So Bandit attacked the first person it saw.” Instead of instituting reforms, the department argued that “‘officer safety’ would be endangered by requiring a reasonable warning before releasing a police dog on private property.” Balderrama is no doubt correct that Fresno police dogs have a bite ratio of less than half of 1%, but the Sacramento incident doesn’t instill confidence. The bill’s sponsor, ACLU California Action, notes, “police dogs seriously injured 186 people within the last two years — more than batons or tasers. Many of these injuries were accidental and some resulted in death or permanent disfigurement.” That’s a significant enough problem to warrant a bill that carefully limits procedures for deploying dogs. Last year, the city of Sacramento paid a $175,000 settlement to a family because of a 2019 incident in which a dog attacked a man in his home, causing him neurological damage. Police knocked on the family’s door asking to search their backyard for a fleeing suspect. A family member gave officers access to the yard through the garage, according to the Sacramento Bee. But an officer “allowed his police K9 to enter the house without permission or warning,” and then bit a man sitting at his computer. Dogs aren’t racist, as Smith concluded, but they can inflict harm if used improperly. This issue isn’t primarily about race, but proper police procedures. Instead of a broad ban and incendiary language, the legislation should impose strict restrictions on the use of canines — and expand the liability of departments that might disregard the public’s safety. Dogs can, as the Fresno chief added, “de-escalate most use-of-force incidents,” but these incidents show they can also turn routine encounters into dangerous ones. Unfortunately, AB 742 doesn’t even address one of the main problems with the police use of dogs. As the bill language explains, “This section shall not be interpreted as to prevent the use of police canines by law enforcement for purposes of search and rescue, explosives detection, and narcotics detection that do not involve biting.” Dogs certainly are useful for search and rescue operations and explosives detection, so those exemptions are important. But dogs have a sketchy history when it comes to drug detection. There’s a reason police canines are known as “barking probable cause.” Their sniffs give officers carte blanche to search people for drugs, yet studies suggest their drug sniffing is inaccurate 50% to 75% of the time. Why not just flip a coin instead? Related Articles