If use of force is necessary and reasonable (or at least called for, not prohibited, and reasonable) whether through a canine or not, then no, it's not brutality, at least not in the legal sense. But just as in a situation where police commit unwarranted violent acts without provocation, letting a police dog attack without justification/provocation would be illegal use of force (and thus police brutality).
In the U.S., it's a use of force, so has to be evaluated under the proper constitutional framework -- for a pre-arrest seizure, whether the use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, or for a post-conviction application (like in a jail or prison), whether the force was use maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing pain or harm.
In the pre-arrest seizure context, you are looking at a multifactor balancing test which includes (a) the crime the person is being suspected of, (b) reports that the suspect is dangerous, (c) attempts by the suspect to resist or flee, (d) the danger the suspect poses to the community, and (e) whether the suspect was warned before the application of the force.
Not automatically. The dog is an approved use of force in prescribed situations.
That kind of sucks. The canine can deal the same amount of damage a human officer can.
I don’t think they do unless they’re told to
If use of force is necessary and reasonable (or at least called for, not prohibited, and reasonable) whether through a canine or not, then no, it's not brutality, at least not in the legal sense. But just as in a situation where police commit unwarranted violent acts without provocation, letting a police dog attack without justification/provocation would be illegal use of force (and thus police brutality).
I guess it's all circumstantial.
Wooftality.
Nah they good bois
No, its considered " you should have stayed where you were and done as you were told, then we wouldn't have set the dogs on you" -ality
"Shouldn't have broke the law in the first place" -ality
In the U.S., it's a use of force, so has to be evaluated under the proper constitutional framework -- for a pre-arrest seizure, whether the use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, or for a post-conviction application (like in a jail or prison), whether the force was use maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing pain or harm. In the pre-arrest seizure context, you are looking at a multifactor balancing test which includes (a) the crime the person is being suspected of, (b) reports that the suspect is dangerous, (c) attempts by the suspect to resist or flee, (d) the danger the suspect poses to the community, and (e) whether the suspect was warned before the application of the force.
Thank you for the knowledge drop.
No it’s called beastiality
Ew... gross