No they don't; they need only reasonable suspicion to make a stop. In a high-crime area, any suspicious behaviour constitutes reasonable suspicion to make a stop. If the person does not respond to the stop, that automatically triggers probable cause to make an arrest and use force if warranted. Also, it's unlikely that the dog was sent at the perp if the perp was not doing anything. If the perp wasn't stopping or was reaching for his pocket--that's enough to send the dog on him (though I do agree that I don't like using animals in dangerous situations; nevertheless, it's one of the main points of even having police dogs).
I think the cops' story rings truer just on its face. Police dogs don't just attack people; and cops don't just sic dogs on people for the hell of it. I believe the guy had a gun in plain view, the cops told the dog to disarm, and the creep killed the dog.
The reason why police dogs are considered police officers in most states is pretty obvious. You cannot absolve yourself of resisting arrest by claiming that the police dog was intimidating you. It's not like the dogs are on patrol by themselves--they are accompanied by human officers. If a cop tells you to lie down or put your hands in the air, and you don't the dog is just an extension of the human police officer and must be accorded the same level of deference. If police dogs were not treated as police officers under the law, it would expose the human officers using such dogs to enormous risk.
Hope you did because AFTER a dog has exhibited such behavior the public sympathy for the animal "adjusts".
That's precisely why the dead guy's family are going to win the Pittsburgh lottery!
Hope you did because AFTER a dog has exhibited such behavior the public sympathy for the animal "adjusts".
That's precisely why the dead guy's family are going to win the Pittsburgh lottery!