|
Unmuzzled dogs being used in US prison system (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You too can be happy. |
:stongue: You almost sound like you're being nice to me for a change :p. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Well I certainly don't think it helps our image much, then again neither does capital punishment when compared to other countries who practice that as well.
But then again, it's not like we've been too conscientious about our image over the past few years anyway. Q brought up some other alternatives, but those have their problems as well. For example, what would happen if you tazed a prisoner who had a bad heart, and the guy drops dead? Could the argument be made that a dog would have been a more appropriate means of getting his lazy defiant ass out of his cell? I think so.
I would hope there would be other alternatives, and perhaps there are better ones out there. Pretty sad. |
|
|
| Lilith |
This is interesting because it's written by people who probably have no real perception or experience with dealing with people who only understand one thing, a threat of force. Now as nasty as it is to have dogs chew on you its a thing a certain percentage of people anywhere understand or they will continue misbehaving or possibly hurt your person.
They dont understand restraint
You cant sit them down for a chat about how theyre behaving
Give them an inch and they will hurt you
Now I like animals and I like people and I really dont like seeing either get hurt, tormented or bothered but what is important too understand is that sometimes you have too. I'm not a prison gaurd (lol) but I've lived in a few places where they only thing between myself being murdered, assaulted or robbed was 70kilo's of dog x 2, a 9mm pistol or running someone over in a Toyota Landcruiser.
Needless to say, it wasnt a daily occourance or even thankfully a monthly occourance but it did happen a fair few times and I have no compunctions about training a dog or dogs too attack on command. I trained dogs well enough so they'd play with my little cousins as a pet but if needed I could tell them too take out someone by the throat, arm, leg, genitals or just kill them.
Because once we have a situation where your going to hurt me or steal everything I own, we also have an understanding that with a dog clamped onto your nuts, this is not a good idea and you shouldnt do it. Chances are, you wont be keen to repeat the experience and wont do it again, problem solved really as far as I'm concerned and sometimes the world really is that simple. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
Shaolin, I think the bottom line with most people's comments is that while it's good to address these issues and to try to come up with the most humane method of dealing with these people, sometimes, you just have to draw the line. We are dealing with convicted prisoners who refuse to comply with orders while in a system that is supposed to, no matter how lacking sometimes it is, correct them. How do you correct someone who is non-compliant without the threat of force? We allow non-lethal force to be used on suspects who resist arrest, why should we hold back on those who have been found guilty by a jury of their peers to disregard orders/laws?
Personally, while neither are things I'd wish for, I'd rather be bit by a trained dog that's had it's shots, under the supervision of someone who can call it off when I agree to comply before I'd want to be shot by a tazer. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| Yeah lets not let Fido bite the convicted Child Rapists. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Well, how about using some type of drug to knock them out? That way the prisoner couldn't be a threat to anyone and can easily be removed from a cell to be transported elsewhere, and no one would have to get bit. I think that would also be alot cheaper than feeding a dog and very effective, especially if the drugs designed to have a nasty hangover or something. You get a few of those and you're probably going to prefer getting up yourself. The problem I see with using an attack dog isn't only the nature of the method itself but also how prone it is to abuse. Prisons aren't exactly a place where there is any real oversight and wardens aren't know for being the nicest people eigther.
Anyways, that's just something off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways it could be done. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Well, how about using some type of drug to knock them out? That way the prisoner couldn't be a threat to anyone and can easily be removed from a cell to be transported elsewhere, and no one would have to get bit. I think that would also be alot cheaper than feeding a dog and very effective, especially if the drugs designed to have a nasty hangover or something. You get a few of those and you're probably going to prefer getting up yourself. The problem I see with using an attack dog isn't only the nature of the method itself but also how prone it is to abuse. Prisons aren't exactly a place where there is any real oversight and wardens aren't know for being the nicest people eigther.
Anyways, that's just something off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty of other ways it could be done. |
Then what happens when someone has an adverse reaction to the drug? Should guards have to carry lists of allergies that they have to reference before using such drugs? Hell, if that's the solution, why don't we keep inmates drugged ALL THE TIME, that way they never act up. It'd be like how we deal with our children now.
Your response is symptomatic of a severe problem we've got in this country where we give everyone drugs for everything. If you had children, I'm guessing probably rather turn your kid into a junkie than smack him to calm him down. Most parents now do, so it doesn't surprise me. That's why sales of anti-psychotic drugs has increased 400% over the past 10 years. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Then what happens when someone has an adverse reaction to the drug? Should guards have to carry lists of allergies that they have to reference before using such drugs? Hell, if that's the solution, why don't we keep inmates drugged ALL THE TIME, that way they never act up. It'd be like how we deal with our children now. |
Well, it was only a suggesion off the top off my head. It wasn't completely thought through. I'm sure there's ways to address that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Your response is symptomatic of a severe problem we've got in this country where we give everyone drugs for everything. If you had children, I'm guessing probably rather turn your kid into a junkie than smack him to calm him down. Most parents now do, so it doesn't surprise me. That's why sales of anti-psychotic drugs has increased 400% over the past 10 years. |
No, I wouldn't choose druging my kid up over disciplining. And I agree that's a severe problem in this country (one that pisses me off too). If I ever got out of line when I was a kid, that's exactly what happened, I got smacked. And I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't put an attack dog on my kid though :rolleyes:. People always get the impression that I'm some kind of soft liberal who can't handle the though of any kind of violence. Well, that certainly isn't the case. And I don't really consider myself to be a "liberal" or "convservative." Not everyone conforms to that social/political paradigm you know. I prefer to think a little more independently that. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
No, I wouldn't choose druging my kid up over disciplining. And I agree that's a severe problem in this country (one that pisses me off too). |
If only parents would use a bag of oranges....leaves no bruises and I still shudder when I see a bag at a grocery store. :nervous: |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Well, it was only a suggesion off the top off my head. It wasn't completely thought through. I'm sure there's ways to address that.
No, I wouldn't choose druging my kid up over disciplining. And I agree that's a severe problem in this country (one that pisses me off too). If I ever got out of line when I was a kid, that's exactly what happened, I got smacked. And I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't put an attack dog on my kid though :rolleyes:. People always get the impression that I'm some kind of soft liberal who can't handle the though of any kind of violence. Well, that certainly isn't the case. And I don't really consider myself to be a "liberal" or "convservative." Not everyone conforms to that social/political paradigm you know. I prefer to think a little more independently that. |
Your kid isn't a convicted felon that's the same size or larger than you, though. Dogs may not be the best thing, but I think a lot of your problem with it has to do with abuses that you know untrained/unmonitored can do. I'm guessing that the motive behind using them is that dogs are harder to fight back against than people, so using them removes the threat of harm to the guards. Furthermore, if the prisoner fights back, he can't take a weapon from the guard and then use it to beat and potentially kill him.
I'm not really for setting dogs on people, but I'd want to see better options before i condemn it. You tried with the drugs, but I think I gave enough reasons why we can't do that.
Also, I never advocated setting dogs on children, so what's with the :rolleyes:. I mean, I use it frequently when applicable, but the unwarranted overuse of that smiley that I've seen in here today is kind of ridiculous. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| @ Groundhog Boy: I guess I should add that I don't see a problem with coercion when necessary. Even if one chooses that as a means in this case, it certainly doesn't require an attack bong. Just get a a group of cops to beat the out of the guy. I used to do martial arts (unfortunately I haven't been practicing since the last couple of years). It doesn't matter how good a fighter you are. One person can't take on multiple people at a time. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ Groundhog Boy: I guess I should add that I don't see a problem with coercion when necessary. Even if one chooses that as a means in this case, it certainly doesn't require an attack bong. Just get a a group of cops to beat the out of the guy. I used to do martial arts (unfortunately I haven't been practicing since the last couple of years). It doesn't matter how good a fighter you are. One person can't take on multiple people at a time. |
Real quick before I leave work. First, there aren't enough cops to guarantee that ganging up is an option. Second, just because they can't take on multiple people and win doesn't mean that they can't do damage trying.
Also, what's an attack bong? |
|
|
|
|
