The argument over whether police officers should be permitted to use lethal force against someone who has attempted to murder or gravely hurt a police dog has been reignited by the recent news of a K9 cop dying after a high-speed pursuit in Georgia. This contentious concern calls into question the usefulness and safety of police dogs while on duty and the appropriateness of force used by law enforcement. This essay will address my belief that police officers should be permitted to use lethal force in this circumstance, as well as the justification for the position.
Viewpoint: A police officer should be permitted to utilize deadly force in a condition where a perpetrator attempts to kill or seriously injure a police dog.
Explanation
Police dogs constitute significant law enforcement community members; they are trained to guard and support police in risky situations, which comprises narcotics detection, tracking down suspects, and apprehending offenders (Ensminger, 2011). These incredibly talented and well-trained dogs risk their lives to defend the community and their human partners. Consequently, any effort to hurt or kill a police dog needs to be viewed as a severe danger, which would allow the officers to use lethal force.
In addition, an offender trying to hurt a police dog is probably a threat to the police officers involved as well. The use of a dangerous weapon against a police dog that has been trained is intended to cause harm, as well as perhaps significant injury or death to the authorities. In such a situation, the police must defend the community and themselves by employing whatever force is required to eliminate the threat (Pritchett, 2022).
Furthermore, any attempt to kill a police dog is viewed as an attack on law enforcement because the ruling recognizes them as generals in their own right. The use of lethal force by police in such circumstances should be seen in the same context as the harsh penalties for attacking or slaying a police dog. Someone who purposefully hurts a police dog poses a significant and immediate risk to both the public and the constables. They must protect their canine partner, just as they would use lethal force to defend another officer. It is considered that, in this case, using deadly force to neutralize the threat and guarantee everyone’s safety is a necessary and appropriate response.
Ultimately, giving criminals a pass for injuring or murdering police dogs creates a risky precedent. It implies that these devoted and courageous animals are disposable and place a target on their backs. It could put the safety of the officers and the public they serve at risk by encouraging more attacks against police dogs.
The strongest argument that contradicts the choice
The proportionality principle is one of the most compelling arguments against permitting police officers to use lethal force in this circumstance. According to this theory, the amount of force used by law enforcement must be commensurate with the threat the subject poses (Casey-Maslen, 2018). To put it in a different context, one should only use as much force as is required to eliminate the threat. Some might contend that, in this case, using lethal force on an offender who has not done anything to hurt or kill the officers would be disproportionate and go against this principle.
Furthermore, some would counter that police dogs should not be treated like conventional law enforcement agents because they are trained to deal with risky circumstances. Therefore, it is only appropriate to employ lethal force to defend human life and not to safeguard animal life.
Conclusion
Therefore, I believe that when someone tries to murder or gravely hurt a police dog, police officers have the right to use deadly force. Law event tactics are justified by the importance, education, and function of police canines as independent detectives. Although this position may be contradicted by the proportionality principle and the claim that police dogs are not people, their functions and significance in law enforcement should not be disregarded or minimized. The police must preserve these creatures because they are vital to maintaining community safety. In this case, using lethal force is an essential step to eliminate the threat and guarantee everyone’s safety.
References
Casey-Maslen, S. (2018). Legality of Use of Armed Unmanned Systems in Law Enforcement. In Drones and Other Unmanned Weapons Systems under International Law (pp. 46-61). Brill Nijhoff.
Ensminger, J. (2011). Police and military dogs: Criminal detection, forensic evidence, and judicial admissibility. CRC Press.
Pritchett, E. (2022, October 8). Georgia K9 officer, murder suspect killed in confrontation after police chase [Video]. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/us/k9-officer-murder-suspect-killed-following-chase-georgia
write