Now, I’ve think I’ve heard everything. It always amazes me that there is more concern for criminals than the victims, human or canine.
UNITED KINGDOM – Police dog handlers have been told to consider whether criminals could be frightened of dogs before using them in raids or searches.
They should also think carefully about the possibility of suspects being allergic to dog hair, according to draft guidelines drawn up by senior officers.
Lately there have been a rash of stories involving police dogs that have been abused, but unbelievably, here is a proposal that worries about the rights of the criminal.
The proposals follow fears that suspects with medical conditions affected by dogs could sue forces which authorise the animals’ use during arrests or raids.
Perhaps, if you’re not doing anything illegal you won’t have a police K9 trying to nip you in the behind.
The traditional shout of “stand still or I will set the dog on you” will presumably now have to become “excuse me, my police dog is quite hairy and might cause alarm as he sinks his fangs into your right thigh – is that all right with you?”
If only lawmakers would focus on creating laws that impose stricter penalties on animal abusers, what a better world it would be.
A serving dog handler, who asked not to be named, declared: I have never heard anything so ridiculous. What’s next? Sparing people custody because they have a fear of enclosed spaces?
