[RFEngineer]

If a dog was not under positive control, then it shouldn’t be used in law enforcement.

If the dog was under positive control, then the officer shouldn’t be employed in law enforcement.

If he can’t tell the difference, he shouldn’t venture too far from parking enforcement.

[Talisker]

If a dog was not under positive control, then it shouldn’t be used in law enforcement.

If the dog was under positive control, then the officer shouldn’t be employed in law enforcement.

If he can’t tell the difference, he shouldn’t venture too far from parking enforcement.

Agreed.

[Varda]

Thank for for a sane post in sea of insanity.

[Farmer Dean]

Bingo!

[Lurker]

Well said.

[piytar]

So you accept the accomplices’ statements as bonafide fact? That’s interesting.

[piytar]

Sorry, second reply was on the wrong thread. My bad.

[ozzymandus]

Big fan of burglars, are you?

[LaRueLaDue]

It is painfully obvious that you don’t have a clue about canine handling. It might be best to post on something you are knowledgeable on.

When dogs are sent on pursuit, they are taught to bite, take the criminal down, and hold until the officer catches up. If it gets to the point that the dog is sent on a pursuit and bite, it nearly always ends up this way. No way to reliably prevent it once the dog is sent. You seem to want to recall the bullet once it is out the barrel...

[Demiurge2]

Thank you for an intelligent post sir.