Exposes a popular notion, that police services are misusing you?
The police officer feels emboldened to act because of the shield and gun, and the perception that government trumps private in all cases, because the government has unlimited resources at their disposal when private does not.
Or it can be an increasing deviancy of so-called "law-abiding" citizens (and millions of non-citizens) who have increasingly been trained in the schools to believe that everything is relative, and the world was put into existence for their own benefit, whose obedience to the law is to barely stay within the envelope of tolerance, and whose intent is to observe only those laws that are convenient to them (but in practice they are pilferers, dope-smokers, casual fornicators, sodomites, cursers, liars, etc, etc,) and to whom enforcement of laws are beneath their consideration. And in the matter we are discussing, neither do they wish to be held accountable to standards of behavior for their pets (or children) (W. C. Fields: "A man that hates dogs and kids can't be all wrong --"); who equate lawmen as common criminals, and corrupted politicians as folk heroes.
I hope I've distorted this view as much as you've distorted yours. But it is exactly along this trend of irresponsibility that the general problem of uncontrolled pets that truly has given rise to a great increase in biting injuries.
"Also, if you see past this one story to the larger trend of police on pet dog shootings (not stray dogs), you will see that it is not the dobermans, pit bulls, and rotweillers that are being shot, but the labradors, collies, huskies, and corgies."
You may be quite correct in this, for the statistics show that it is exactly the collies, huskies, corgies, pomeranians, mutts, etc. (personally I would not include pedigreed labs or cockers or such gentler breeds) that are causing most of this epidemic of dog-biting that is flooding the country. Not my opinion. A fact. Hence perhaps correspondingly more shooting of untrained, ill-tempered, nuisance pets that are terrorizing not only their neighbors but whose owners are also difficult to deal with.
What has happened is that the phrase "fear for their lives" has become "fear for their safety." "Safety" now includes scratches and bites, none of which are lethal.
That's your opinion. Actually, in the U. S. over $200 million are spent for hospitalization every year-- this excludes non-hospital treatments, let alone perhaps fifty times as many unreported incidents. Don't you think this poses kind of a problem? Some 4 to 5 million bites per year?
Suppose I socked you in the face -- gave you a black eye, but did not break teeth or cut your flesh. Not lethal, but would you just kind of figure that's the way the cookie crumbles, and just forget it? Especially if you did nothing to earn it? Now picture just striking out at a police officer. Think there might be a response, even if you only made a motion? Well, that is what a dog may be effectively doing, obstructing and interfering with his work. That will probably not be appreciated, especially if you made no effort to restrain your pet immediately.
It's an attitude problem, backed by a bureaucracy inculcated to circle the wagons in all cases.
Looks to me like you might possibly have an attitude problem also? Somehow, I sense that might be.
Or it can be an increasing deviancy of so-called "law-abiding" citizens (and millions of non-citizens) who have increasingly been trained in the schools to believe that everything is relative, and the world was put into existence for their own benefit, whose obedience to the law is to barely stay within the envelope of tolerance, and whose intent is to observe only those laws that are convenient to them...
How much of this do you attribute to the uncontrolled influx of people from other countries who bring their cultures here where regard for the law is barely above subsistence, as opposed to the general decay of generational Americans?
-PJ