Police dog Finn.

[cee-dee]

Police dog Finn was stabbed by a 16 year-old, He's now recovering but a petition has been started calling for Police Dogs and Horses to be given the same status as Police Officers. Fancy signing the petition?:-

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168678/signatures/new

Here's the info (The number of signatures is out of date, it's over 31,000 now) :-

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/crime/finn-s-law-petition-calling-for-attack-on-police-dog-to-be...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-37621671

[upthecreekyetagain]

Again I don’t understand the relevance of your question other than it appears to be portraying a level of prejudice.

I agree reasonable force, (self-defence argument), is justified but do you then object to Finn’s law, as I do, on the grounds that if enacted it will remove the right to use reasonable force if attacked by a police dog?

[cee-dee]

More "understanding" needed eh?

When the Bill is completely formulated (and afterwards if it isn't covered by the Bill), the issue of "reasonable force" will take account of an innocent person being restrained by a Police dog.

An offender will face the same sanctions as resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer.

Offenders fleeing a police officer with a dog will have heard calls from the officer to stop and after failing to do so will result in the officer calling out that if the offender doesn't stop, the Police dog will be released. If he then gets bitten, so be it and if he hurts the Police dog, "self defence" won't be considered, he'll then probably face a charge of assaulting a police dog.

When being arrested by a Police officer, if the offender resists and fights back, it's no use claiming "self defence" as the officer will either be in uniform or have announced that he's a Police officer and will have informed the offender what he's being arrested for. People are always arrested "on suspicion of...." so the thing is, submit during the arrest and "sort it out" later.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Let’s be clear - if a suspect is attacked by a police dog is that suspect justified in using reasonable force to end the attack - force that may or may not result in the death or serious injury to the dog?

What if the person attacked is later shown not to have been involved in any crime?

What if the person was attacked without any reasonable suspicion.

They are the three potential scenarios - should different laws apply, (specifically the right to use reasonable force in self-defence), to how the ‘victim’ can act in each one.

Your post suggests that a completely innocent person, who has every right to ignore the orders of a police officer, should passively obey an unlawful order or accept being attacked by a police dog, and should be prosecuted if they do use reasonable force against the dog in order to protect themselves.

We do not live in an ideal World where every action carried out by the police is done by the book.  You only have to look on YouTube to see numerous examples of police officers demanding for example that citizens stop and identify themselves - a right they simply don’t have.  

Finn’s law is not so much about protecting service dogs but offering additional protection for their handlers against legitimate complaints.

Unjustified attacks by police dogs are by no means as rare as I thought, (more common than attacks on police dogs) :-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25883238

[cee-dee]

Your protestations are beginning to look more and more like that of someone being arrested "on suspicion of...." who's been told more than a dozen times why he's being arrested but keeps on and on asking "What have I done? What have I done? What have I done? What have I done? What have I done? What have I done? What have I done? What have I done?" or "Why am I being arrested? Why am I being arrested? Why am I being arrested? Why am I being arrested? Why am I being arrested?"

I suggest you have a look at The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Crininal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. After that, try the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Terrorism Act 2000.

A police Officer has the right to stop and search if he has "reasonable grounds" for doing so. The same applies whether he's got a dog or not. Completely innocent people would surely comply with instructions to stop?

[joe_bloggs*]

"Misuse of stop and search powers risks undermining police, says watchdog"

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/misue-stop-search-powers

[upthecreekyetagain]

All those Acts require the police to have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is guilty of a specific arrestable offence - not the same as looking dodgy or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  All you are doing is pointing out the wide range of additional powers that have been given to the police over the last 30 years and here you are wanting to give them yet more.  

As Joe points out in their link, stop and search powers have been misused in tens of thousands of cases.  

You say that “completely innocent people would surely comply with instructions to stop” - you are probably right that that would be true in the majority of cases but they are under no obligation to do so - that is the point - if an individual didn’t stop that wouldn’t provide justification for setting a dog onto them and if one were they should have the right to use any means possible to protect themselves.

[cee-dee]

Failure to comply would give the Police even more reason to request you to stop.

If the complaints about the "misuse" of S & S were all recorded on camera, I think that the majority would show that the request was received with hostility.

Were I stopped or asked to stop, I'd comply first and when it was found that I had nothing or had done nothing of interest (to the cops) only then would I ask them why they'd picked on me. I'd not start gobbing off the moment they requested me to stop.

Often, when confronted by cops, I've made a joke of it. Some see the funny side, a few had no sense of humour.

A few times when talking to cops, I've said "You realise youi're talking to an armed man?" After their shocked reaction I've followed that up with "Hadn't you better ask me what I'm armed with?" After they've done so, (hands on their spray or taser) I've said "My right arm and my left arm"........

[upthecreekyetagain]

Fine the first time, possibly even the second or third time - what about the fifth time in a week?

‘Failure to stop” cannot be used as a justification for stopping someone - the grounds for stopping someone must exist prior to them being stopped.

In order to stop and search an individual then a police officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying a ‘prohibited’ item - (weapons, drugs, or stolen goods).  How does that marry up with the fact that all stop and searches only result in a 15% arrest rate?

Officers must NOT base their suspicions on the race, age, gender or the way in which someone is dressed - how does that marry up with the fact that you are eight times more likely to be stopped if you are black or Asian than if you are white?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41849256

[cee-dee]

I doubt if those stopped "regularly" are stopped by the same cops so there must be something about them that makes it seem that they "fit" the criteria of some criminal intent whether that be their mannerisms or their actions.

Taking this unlikely scenario as an example...... Lets say that statistics showed that those in middle age with a bald head wearing a suit and tie who adopted a "brisk" way of walking were often the main knife-carrying mugging offenders, isn't it likely that people fitting that criteria were more likely to be stopped and searched?

[upthecreekyetagain]

You’ve identified the problem - inbuilt prejudice - it was this type of assumption that led the Stephen Lawrence enquiry to label the Metropolitan Police as institutionally racist.

Read my previous post - an officer when deciding to stop and search someone must NOT use age, race, dress nor gender. 

An an officer has to have a reasonable belief that the person stopped is carrying a prohibited item - not he looks like and dresses like someone who might be carrying something.

This is from a leaflet on Stop & Search issued by the Bedfordshire Police

An officer is usually required to have reasonable grounds for suspicion in order to conduct a stop and search; it depends on which law an officer wishes to use. For example, searches under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, require an officer to have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The  two-part test must be satisfied in circumstances that require reasonable grounds for suspicion:

 Firstly, the officer must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind that they will find the object for which the search power being exercised allows them to search...;

and

 Secondly, the suspicion that the object will be found must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood that the object in question will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information and/or intelligence. [Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice: Code A, paragraph 2.2.]

In the case of searches under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a constable may stop and search a person whom the officer reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether the person is in possession of anything which may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/assets/PDFs/Stop-and-Search/StopAndSearch-Guide.pdf

[cee-dee]

If a person fits the identified criteria, what's predjudiced about that? It's reasonable to suspect that person may well have whatever it is that's offensive.

Do-gooders bending over backwards to latch on to anyting critical of the Police do the rest of us no good at all!

[upthecreekyetagain]

If you cannot see what is wrong with stopping someone because they are black or because they are wearing a hoodie or because they are teenagers then there is little more to say.

What is difficult about understanding that a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that someone is carrying a prohibited item in order to carry out a stop and search.  Profiling, no matter what the criteria, is not a lawful reason.

[cee-dee]

I've never mentioned "Black".

Profiling is used all the time and is a successful method of proactive policing.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gave police the right to Stop and Search anyone in a designated area without reasonable suspicion.

How did the police use this new power? - the whole of Greater London was designated as such an area for 10 years - tens of thousands of searches were carried out under these powers and not a single searched person was arrested for a terrorist related offence.

In 2011 these powers were declared unlawful by the ECHR and the Act has been subsequently amended.  This goes to show that the police as an organisation, (not the individual officers), cannot be trusted to use their powers in a lawful and responsible manner - that is why I believe it is very important to scrutinise very carefully any proposed additional powers and not just agree to them on an emotional spur of the moment basis.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I've never mentioned "Black".

Profiling is used all the time and is a successful method of proactive policing.

---

I’ve mentioned black because it is the most obvious factor when it comes to Stop and Search.

Profiling is a perfectly legitimate tool for police investigations however it is NOT a lawful method nor justification nor cause for “reasonable suspicion” when it comes to Stop and Search.

[cee-dee]

The latest:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-47171412

[suzieseaside]

Good news!

[cee-dee]

Yes, very good news. Dogs are not just a tool, they're living, clever creatures.

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Yes, very good news. Dogs are not just a tool, they're living, clever creatures.

---

Yes you are right CD very clever creatures, but they are only clever for reward, they don't have the power of reasoning like humans do, God made humans far superior to animals so they are really only used as a tool in the force. 

[suzieseaside]

Power of reasoning!
Ironic when you have preached that humans are no more than 6000 years old 🤣
Where's the reasoning there? No, please don't answer that, one cult thread is more than enough.

The more I see of humans the more I like dogs.