AB 742: Police K-9s

[SDDAVE56]

Hopefully everyones aware of this, and it doesn't pass.

AB 742: Police K-9s

?This bill would prohibit the use of an unleashed police canine by law enforcement to apprehend a person, person unless the person is being pursued for a felony that threatened or resulted in the death of or serious bodily injury to another person and the person poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person and any use of a police canine for crowd control. The bill would prohibit a police canine from being used to bite unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person by the person against whom the canine is used. The bill would attribute the death of or serious bodily injury to a person caused by a police canine to the canine?s handler as constituting deadly force. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from authorizing any use or training of a police canine that is inconsistent with this bill.?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202320240AB742

Below is San Diego PD Chief Nisleit?s statement.
San Diego Police Department
11h ?
San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit issued the following statement today on the proposed Assembly Bill 742 (AB 742), which would prohibit and restrict the use of police canines.
Chief Nisleit Statement:
?The proposed California State Assembly Bill 742 is another flawed attempt by state legislators to reduce racial disparities and use of force in policing.
Since 1984, SDPD has used police K-9?s to locate and apprehend suspects in circumstances that are exceedingly dangerous for officers, such as searching in dark canyons, buildings, homes, or vehicles, where a concealed suspect maintains an advantage over officers. The K-9 affords officers time and distance to better analyze the situation and respond appropriately from a safer distance.
SDPD has an extensive selection, academy and training program for canine handlers that exceeds California P.O.S.T. requirements. SDPD has policies and procedures which outline how and when K-9?s can be used in the field as well as procedures for review of every apprehension using a K-9.
The vast majority of K-9 deployments in San Diego are for de-escalating dangerous/volatile incidents with confrontational, irrational, armed and/or suicidal subjects that fail to respond to the presence and direction of uniformed officers. Handlers are required to issue K-9 warnings to suspects and often, the warnings are repeated multiple times throughout an incident before a K-9 is released for apprehension.
Over the past 5 years, SDPD K9?s were used at 10,815 calls for service and accounted for 927 subjects complying with officers after just the mere presence of the K-9. In only 1% of the calls over the last 5 years, did the suspect ignore the K-9 warnings, refuse to surrender and, as a result, was bitten. No SDPD K-9 deployment has resulted in death or life-threatening injury.
AB 742 wrongly categorizes a police K-9 as deadly force, considering the K-9 no different than a firearm. Categorizing the K-9?s in this manner is misguided and would eliminate a valuable de-escalation tool in instances where other tools may have failed, but deadly force is not warranted.
The passage of AB 742 will put officers into more dangerous situations without a de-escalation tool that is capable of apprehending violent suspects without the use of a firearm.
The unintended consequence of this piece of legislation will be an increase in officer-involved shootings, officer and suspect injury, and increased threats to community safety.
I urge our legislators to keep this tool intact for the safety of our officers and the communities they serve.?

[SB1942]

Just in case you want to meet the brain surgeon behind this bill:

https://lgbtqcaucus.legislature.ca.g...-corey-jackson

[Grobie]

Leave it to stupid woke politicians to fix a problem that never existed.

[dno]

Yea, but there are a lot of so called conservatives who'll reply, "Meh, play my small violin, doesn't effect me"...That's why these bills get passed and that's why we have so many wing nut politicians getting elected.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by dno

Yea, but there are a lot of so called conservatives who'll reply, "Meh, play my small violin, doesn't effect me"...That's why these bills get passed and that's why we have so many wing nut politicians getting elected.

Hey, leave YSR out of this

[TrailerparkTrash]

Next thing you know, they’ll take the carotid restraint away from cops.

“Oh wait… what’s this?…. That already went away!!!”
-Mark Dice

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Leave it to stupid woke politicians to fix a problem that never existed.

I share your disdain of [stupid woke politicians]. I am also fully aware what great tools, K-9s are for many aspects of LE. But like all tools, they have specific purposes and limitations. Dogs as smart as they are. Are incapable of cognitive reasoning capability. That is the handlers job.

But please explain, in your opinion, at what point does a [problem actually exist]?

If you were asleep in your bed, bothering no one, and didn't hear the phone ring, and woke up to a K-9 ripping your neck open. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAztNBFzVA

If you were sleeping in a bush. Bothering no one. And you were woken by a K-9 ripping your scalp off your head. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McT3bm_PIXw

If you were sleeping in a tent in your own back yard. Bothering no one. And you were woken by a K-9 attacking you, and ripping your arm open. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpuJDP9ltEI&t=16s

If you walked out of your neighborhood liquor store and were attacked by a K-9. Would you consider that to be an actual problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nYGjU85CU0

If your 20 yr old pregnant wife/sister/daughter, heard a rukus in front of your house. And stepped onto your porch to investigate. And was attacked by a K-9, and hospitalized. Would you consider that to be an actual problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h1BizuCKAY

I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my point. No one is immune from LE K9 attacks. They even attack their own handlers occasionally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDXK1xW1fg

As well as toddlers, ....5 yr olds, and ...... little old ladies. Being naked in the shower is not even safe, https://youtu.be/TUs-PZ_G0Fk Even a blind man in a church. https://youtu.be/gkT1q7DKaL4

So the problem does exist. And their human handlers oft times make matters worse by trying to CTA and their dogs tails, by arresting people they know committed no crime. For pc-148. Then at press releases the brass invariably calls each incident an [UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT].

dno said; "Meh, play my small violin, doesn't effect me".

And I agree with that part. But it has nothing to do with conservatives, or wing nut politicians getting elected. It is just human nature to be apathetic towards issues unless you have some sort of skin in the game.

[esy]

Originally Posted by pacrat

I share your disdain of [stupid woke politicians]. I am also fully aware what great tools, K-9s are for many aspects of LE. But like all tools, they have specific purposes and limitations. Dogs as smart as they are. Are incapable of cognitive reasoning capability. That is the handlers job.

But please explain, in your opinion, at what point does a [problem actually exist]?

If you were asleep in your bed, bothering no one, and didn't hear the phone ring, and woke up to a K-9 ripping your neck open. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAztNBFzVA

If you were sleeping in a bush. Bothering no one. And you were woken by a K-9 ripping your scalp off your head. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McT3bm_PIXw

If you were sleeping in a tent in your own back yard. Bothering no one. And you were woken by a K-9 attacking you, and ripping your arm open. Would you consider that to be an actual problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpuJDP9ltEI&t=16s

If you walked out of your neighborhood liquor store and were attacked by a K-9. Would you consider that to be an actual problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nYGjU85CU0

If your 20 yr old pregnant wife/sister/daughter, heard a rukus in front of your house. And stepped onto your porch to investigate. And was attacked by a K-9, and hospitalized. Would you consider that to be an actual problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h1BizuCKAY

I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my point. No one is immune from LE K9 attacks. They even attack their own handlers occasionally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDXK1xW1fg

As well as toddlers, ....5 yr olds, and ...... little old ladies. Being naked in the shower is not even safe, https://youtu.be/TUs-PZ_G0Fk Even a blind man in a church. https://youtu.be/gkT1q7DKaL4

So the problem does exist. And their human handlers oft times make matters worse by trying to CTA and their dogs tails, by arresting people they know committed no crime. For pc-148. Then at press releases the brass invariably calls each incident an [UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT].



And I agree with that part. But it has nothing to do with conservatives, or wing nut politicians getting elected. It is just human nature to be apathetic towards issues unless you have some sort of skin in the game.

I?m trying to understand your position. It sounds like we should remove K9s from the LE world because there is a small percentage of bad uses of force or accidents.

By that logic, we should abolish the 2nd amendment because of a small percentage of accidents or problems.

Where are you going with your logic?

[bohoki]

it seems every k9 takedown was in the comission of a felony so i dont get what this changes

[Oldmandan]

Originally Posted by bohoki

it seems every k9 takedown was in the comission of a felony so i dont get what this changes

It?s a get rich quick scheme at the taxpayers expense

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by esy

[1] ... I?m trying to understand your position. [2] ... It sounds like we should remove K9s from the LE world [3] .... because there is a small percentage of bad uses of force or accidents. [4] ... By that logic, we should abolish the 2nd amendment because of a small percentage of accidents or problems.

[5] ... Where are you going with your logic?

[1] ... Sorry I didn't make clear that I personally, in NO WAY wish, want, or advocate for the removal of K9s from the tool box available for LE.

[2] ... And my post was in NO WAY meant to cast any aspersions on the tens of thousands of LE K9 Handlers, and their partners, who exercise proper restraint in the performance of their duties. To keep both themselves, and citizens safe.

[3] ... That small percentage of lack of restraint, and the bad uses of force, that you mention. And IMHO is just a small, even tiny part of a percent. DOES EXIST. And should be mitigated in such a way to keep officers and citizens safe. Or at least as safe as humanly possible. We as citizens and LEO alike, know that it is just such incidents that make headlines and create even more divisiveness, further feeding the US v THEM PR MONSTER.

[4] ... Glad you mentioned 2A. It reads SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But all reasonable people, know that we have laws that we citizens welcome. That INFRINGE on the rights, of individuals to use arms in criminal, and reckless acts. That infringe on the rights of fellow citizens.

[5] .... Again glad you asked. By my logic, if LE takes the initiative, and self regulate, and standardize, K9 UOF policy, like they do most all other aspects of the profession. To do all possible to assure the safety of all concerned. Then [stupid woke politicians] lose one more reason to side with the BLMers and go after LE.

Grobie ... Leave it to stupid woke politicians to fix a problem that never existed.

^^^ Don't give [stupid woke politicians] traction by ignoring an issue in the hopes it goes away, by claiming it never existed.

Be Safe

[esy]

Originally Posted by pacrat

[1] ... Sorry I didn't make clear that I personally, in NO WAY wish, want, or advocate for the removal of K9s from the tool box available for LE.

[2] ... And my post was in NO WAY meant to cast any aspersions on the tens of thousands of LE K9 Handlers, and their partners, who exercise proper restraint in the performance of their duties. To keep both themselves, and citizens safe.

[3] ... That small percentage of lack of restraint, and the bad uses of force, that you mention. And IMHO is just a small, even tiny part of a percent. DOES EXIST. And should be mitigated in such a way to keep officers and citizens safe. Or at least as safe as humanly possible. We as citizens and LEO alike, know that it is just such incidents that make headlines and create even more divisiveness, further feeding the US v THEM PR MONSTER.

[4] ... Glad you mentioned 2A. It reads SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But all reasonable people, know that we have laws that we citizens welcome. That INFRINGE on the rights, of individuals to use arms in criminal, and reckless acts. That infringe on the rights of fellow citizens.

[5] .... Again glad you asked. By my logic, if LE takes the initiative, and self regulate, and standardize, K9 UOF policy, like they do most all other aspects of the profession. To do all possible to assure the safety of all concerned. Then [stupid woke politicians] lose one more reason to side with the BLMers and go after LE.



^^^ Don't give [stupid woke politicians] traction by ignoring an issue in the hopes it goes away, by claiming it never existed.

Be Safe

Ok. I can?t speak to what Grobie meant by his post, but I can only hypothesize (whether LEO or not) his meaning, sarcasm, cynicism, and jaded connotation to his post.

I don?t believe you could find any active or retired LEO on here who doesn?t realize or see the small percentage; however, by allowing a small percentage to dictate poor policies which have an umbrella and many times, detrimental, effect on policing is bad business. It sets bad precedence for future events.

I haven?t met a single handler or officer who have gotten bit, scratched, or hurt from a K9 who believes they should be limited or removed from LE. Do they exist? Possibly, but again, tiny percentages.

Just like TPT mentioned carotid restraints. I don?t know a single LEO who has used, seen it used, or had it put on them who believed that was a good idea to label as lethal force, but here we are.

Is there a problem which is a tiny percentage? Yes. Does it call for widespread legal changes which will affect all departments throughout the state in regards to our use? Not in the slightest.

[pacrat]

Is there a problem which is a tiny percentage? Yes. Does it call for widespread legal changes which will affect all departments throughout the state in regards to our use? Not in the slightest.

My POINT again is not advocating for any [ widespread legal changes ]. Even though it may likely come to that. Because the polititurds are already circling the wagons, and smell blood in the water. I assuredly hope this bill fails to pass. And LEAs step up and do everything possible to change their public optics on the issue.

again

[5] .... Again glad you asked. By my logic, if LE takes the initiative, and self regulate, and standardize, K9 UOF policy, like they do most all other aspects of the profession. To do all possible to assure the safety of all concerned. Then [stupid woke politicians] lose one more reason to side with the BLMers and go after LE.

If LEA in this state had stepped up and made, https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_d...ations/K-9.pdf
A standard requirement for K9 teams. Which has been available to them since 1992. And tightened their own policies regarding ON/OFF leash controls.

Rather than a voluntary program [like now, that the vast majority ignore. As shown by watching the videos where handlers CAN'T CONTROL their partners. Then compare those video incidents.

With the POST GUIDELINES for the MINUMUM REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TRAINING. You will see a big discrepancy.

. From a reasonable distance and on verbal command only, the K-9 will cease
the apprehension.

When big attack dogs, chew up toddlers in diapers, in their own living room. And 5 yr olds, at POLICE SPONSORED PICNICS. And a 20 yr old pregnant woman on her porch.

Those are not [unfortunate accidents]. No matter how small of a percentage. Those are major F-ups, with the very worse possible public optics. And it is just such incidents that feed the US v THEM agenda, and give traction to the politicians like this clown.

[dno]

OP provides 8 youtube videos of K-9 searches gone bad . But how many thousands of searches were/are conducted that were successful? How many times were cops and civilians saved from injury due to the K-9 in the search? Those were left out because like a BLM anti-LEO argument, real facts can nullify their point.
If you've ever been involved with a K-9 search, you would realize keeping the dog on a leash would take the searchers quite a while to cover an area.
I personally took part in 2 searches were the susps (robbery on one, GTA on the other) were located by the dog before any ofcr saw them...we lit up the susps with our flashlights while the dog was about 2-3 feet from the susp, just staring at him. The dog's handler is the only one giving the susp instructions, like keep your hands visible and no sudden moves. Both times the angry susp then punched the dog and wound up with a mass of hair and teeth all over him. No sympathy when a criminals actions cause him injury. When a broadcast is made over a PA system that a K-9 is being deployed, the susp chooses whether to give up or cause more problems.

[SDDAVE56]

Got this in an email today. Look like its been shelved for now.


"Although AB 742 ?Police K-9s has been shelved for this year, its author Assembly member Corey Jackson says he wants to bring it back next year claiming ?The use of police canines has been a mainstay in this country?s dehumanizing, cruel, and violent abuse of Black Americans and people of color for centuries.? [source: U-T 5-31-23 article]".

So this is what its all about,,

"cruel, and violent abuse of Black Americans and people of color for centuries"

We should ban private ownership of Dogs. At least have a California Approved Dog Roster. Hmm, doesn't seem to be any mention of Whitey getting chewed on.

[esy]

Originally Posted by pacrat

My POINT again is not advocating for any [ widespread legal changes ]. Even though it may likely come to that. Because the polititurds are already circling the wagons, and smell blood in the water. I assuredly hope this bill fails to pass. And LEAs step up and do everything possible to change their public optics on the issue.

again


If LEA in this state had stepped up and made, https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_d...ations/K-9.pdf
A standard requirement for K9 teams. Which has been available to them since 1992. And tightened their own policies regarding ON/OFF leash controls.

Rather than a voluntary program [like now, that the vast majority ignore. As shown by watching the videos where handlers CAN'T CONTROL their partners. Then compare those video incidents.

With the POST GUIDELINES for the MINUMUM REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TRAINING. You will see a big discrepancy.



When big attack dogs, chew up toddlers in diapers, in their own living room. And 5 yr olds, at POLICE SPONSORED PICNICS. And a 20 yr old pregnant woman on her porch.

Those are not [unfortunate accidents]. No matter how small of a percentage. Those are major F-ups, with the very worse possible public optics. And it is just such incidents that feed the US v THEM agenda, and give traction to the politicians like this clown.

Your posts are the epitome of contradiction. That?s what I?m getting at. You make widespread accusations or denouncements of how K9s work likely without knowing their training practices, that department?s policies, or even the demographic they work within. At the same time, you?re still making widespread allegations and denouncements on a tiny percentage of unfortunate events.

You?re saying you don?t want to see widespread changes, but you advocate for widespread changes. It would seem you?re the one creating the Us v Them mentality. I haven?t seen anyone else do that.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by dno

[1] ... OP provides 8 youtube videos of K-9 searches gone bad . But how many thousands of searches were/are conducted that were successful? How many times were cops and civilians saved from injury due to the K-9 in the search?

[2] ... Those were left out because like a BLM anti-LEO argument, real facts can nullify their point.

[1] ... I can only guess that you either didn't read/understand my posts [plural]. Or have selectively chose to ignore my actual words, and are commenting on what you choose to think I said.

You infer that Im being disingenuous and mention [thousands]. Whereas I had already noted [TENS OF THOUSANDS].

[2] ... That statement gives the definite impression that you are projecting a motive that aligns my views with the groups you mentioned. So rather than jumping to an assumption, I will ask. Are you intentionally inferring that Im like a BLM Anti-LEO? Or benefit of doubt, was that just a less than accurate choice of words? Because you failed to read/understand what I DID ACTUALLY WRITE?

The topic is in regards to a Politician trying to cash in on the ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED BY ME in my 2nd post,. [TINY PART OF A PERCENT OF K9 ENCOUNTERS, that go badly.] I didn't even consider unnecessarily posting vids of GOOD BITES. Since they are not at issue.

[1] ... Sorry I didn't make clear that I personally, in NO WAY wish, want, or advocate for the removal of K9s from the tool box available for LE.

[2] ... And my post was in NO WAY meant to cast any aspersions on the tens of thousands of LE K9 Handlers, and their partners, who exercise proper restraint in the performance of their duties. To keep both themselves, and citizens safe.

[3] ... That small percentage of lack of restraint, and the bad uses of force, that you mention. And IMHO is just a small, even tiny part of a percent. DOES EXIST. And should be mitigated in such a way to keep officers and citizens safe. Or at least as safe as humanly possible. We as citizens and LEO alike, know that it is just such incidents that make headlines and create even more divisiveness, further feeding the US v THEM PR MONSTER.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by esy

Your posts are the epitome of contradiction. That?s what I?m getting at. You make widespread accusations or denouncements of how K9s work likely without knowing their training practices, that department?s policies, or even the demographic they work within. At the same time, you?re still making widespread allegations and denouncements on a tiny percentage of unfortunate events.

You?re saying you don?t want to see widespread changes, but you advocate for widespread changes. It would seem you?re the one creating the Us v Them mentality. I haven?t seen anyone else do that.

I don't consider advocating LEAs to at least, bring their K9-UOF training standards up to the BARE MINIMUM, of accepted Ca POST guidelines, that have been established BY LE for LE since 1992, ....over 30 yrs ago.

Anywhere near the same as in your words;

Is there a problem which is a tiny percentage? Yes. Does it call for widespread legal changes which will affect all departments throughout the state in regards to our use? Not in the slightest.

The topic is a proposed bill that would make those same, widespread legal changes . The law of the land.

That IMHO is a far cry, and does not equate to urging the adoption of POST MINIMUM GUIDELINES.

[TrailerparkTrash]

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash

You sound like my wife ............... .. ..

[pacrat]

tiny percentage of unfortunate events.

I don't know why you keep playing the percentage card. You started at [small] and I lowered it to [tiny], as my opinion. Truth is in this world, numbers mean next to nothing. When you are dealing with OPTICS, POLITICS, and FEELZ.

EXAMPLE
There are 233,000,000 licensed drivers in the US. And only a tiny percentage are ever convicted of DUI. And only an itsy-bitsy percentage of that tiny percentage of drivers. Are ever involved in a DUI related accident.

YET a few thousand women got together and formed MADD. Marched on DC. And bought lots of Politicians and Media time. Very reminiscent of the womens temperance marches that got Prohibition Passed. Within a couple of years, BAC was lowered from .1 to .08. [20%]. DD check points sprang up every holiday, Fri., and Sat. nights across the country. And sentences were doubled or quadrupled.

All to deal with an ITSY_BITSY part of a TINY PERCENTAGE.

All because of OPTICS, POLITICS, and FEELZ.

TPT nailed it with.
Next thing you know, they?ll take the carotid restraint away from cops.

?Oh wait? what?s this??. That already went away!!!?
-Mark Dice

esy

Just like TPT mentioned carotid restraints. I don?t know a single LEO who has used, seen it used, or had it put on them who believed that was a good idea to label as lethal force, but here we are.

What was the percentage of suspects actually harmed? Was it small, tiny, miniscule, its-bitsy, or even microscopic? In the end, the number didn't matter. Because of the O-P-F factors involved. The Race Baiting politicos won, and LE lost another tool.

Rather than [BUT HERE WE ARE], yet again. With K9s only allowed for S-R. LEAs just might consider changing the OPTICs. By initiating their own changes with POST Guidelines.
Which will affect the FEELZ. And remove the POLITICOs soap box..

Or LE can continue to resist/ignore the issue, and hope for the best with their fingers crossed.

[GizmoSD]

Pacrat, what?s your LE background? Curious.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by GizmoSD

Pacrat, what?s your LE background? Curious.

So am I. I am curious about your curiosity. How is answering your question relevant to a discussion of AB-742?

I was under the impression that after posting on this forum for the last 9 years. Everyone already knew the answer. Which is that I have never been professionally affiliated with LE.

Your turn!

[GizmoSD]

I?m a narcotics sgt at a large Southern California department.

I thought this forum was supposed to be a place people came to get answers from LE. Not a place for debates with the general public.

[LVcleef]

I have noticed that lately this sub-forum has become a place for non LE to vent....that said, I'm guessing prob close to half of the posters are not sworn

[dno]

Originally Posted by pacrat

So am I. I am curious about your curiosity. How is answering your question relevant to a discussion of AB-742?

I was under the impression that after posting on this forum for the last 9 years. Everyone already knew the answer. Which is that I have never been professionally affiliated with LE.

Your turn!

Well, you proved a point that just about every street cop already knows...that no matter how much experience you have as an LEO, someone who has never worked the job is always ready to tell you how to do your job better.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by pacrat

So am I. I am curious about your curiosity. How is answering your question relevant to a discussion of AB-742?


I was under the impression that after posting on this forum for the last 9 years. Everyone already knew the answer. Which is that I have never been professionally affiliated with LE.

Your turn!

Originally Posted by GizmoSD

[1] ... I?m a narcotics sgt at a large Southern California department.

[2] ... I thought this forum was supposed to be a place people came to get answers from LE. Not a place for debates with the general public.

[1] ... I did not ASK any question related to your LE affiliation. That is the question that you asked me. I asked a question that you chose NOT to answer.

[2] ... So why the deflection, rather than an honest answer to the question, that WAS ASKED?

My first thread post included 6 questions. All went unanswered. I asked 2 more in post # 21. Also unanswered. Same for the 1, I asked you.

The 2[3] questions directed to myself by [dno and yourself]. I answered promptly, and honestly. The few questions from [esy] were rhetorical. Which he answered himself.

1. This forum is for Calguns LEO members and those who would like to ask questions in a civil manner.

2. This forum is to give our LEO members a place to share their stories, pictures and videos as well as answer serious questions from the membership.

3. This is NOT a place to air your dislike of the Government, Law Enforcement, LEOs in general or the law in general. Doing so here will result in losing access to this forum.

4. Post denigrating or insulting our LEO members will be removed and the poster will no longer be able to access this forum.

5. Questions for LEOs should be both civil and serious. Questions like 'Why do you thugs..' will get you removed and possibly banned. Frivolous questions will be deleted.

6. 'Cop Bashing' will NOT be tolerated in this forum at all.

7. In addition to these special rules, the standard rules still apply here as well.

[GizmoSD]

You?re providing an opinion on a topic you have no experience in. Your opinion is as valuable as my opinion on welding. Sure, I could google some stuff and create the illusion of competence, but I?ve never been trained in welding. It?s all conjecture and opinion.

I could google ?chainsaw accidents? and post YouTube videos and news articles that support a stance that chainsaws should be restricted. Congratulations, you know how to work the internet.

Thanks for your opinion, buts it?s limited to that. Your opinion.

Answering my question is relevant because this forum is designed to provide a space for the public to ask questions of experts in a field. You answering my question clarified that you are not an expert in the field, and are merely someone providing an uneducated opinion based on news and internet searches.

People didn?t answer your questions because doing so is as valuable as debating with a drunk. Time is better spent making large rocks smaller.

[pacrat]

That is a whole bunch of deflectory obsfucational words. But still not a real answer. IS IT?

So are readers to presume that your question was not truly out of simple curiousity? [which I suspected] But just to determine the vocation of a poster. So you could dismiss my concerns over the possible loss of LE K9s uses due to AB-742. Cause I aint a cop. Just as dno did.

By your apparent round about deflective reasoning. As an excuse to be less than forthright, and ignore honest questions. IYHO, ... should honest questions by concerned citizens not be allowed on this forum? And Kes should do away with these rules to suit you and dno?

Thats 4 more questions..

1. This forum is for Calguns LEO members and those who would like to ask questions in a civil manner.

2. This forum is to give our LEO members a place to share their stories, pictures and videos as well as answer serious questions from the membership.


7. In addition to these special rules, the standard rules still apply here as well.

Did you actually read my posts in this thread? And take specific exception to any of my opinions? Which I am more than willing to discuss with you. Or, just decided to pile on, without reading/understanding them. Cause I aint a cop. And you want me gone from [your space]. Which BTW, I've been posting in this form for 3 yrs before you.

Now 6 questions.

I actually did an internet peek at your CG-LE posts. Before I asked that first [?] And lo and behold. In every prior thread, that you and I, both posted in, our views/opinions were never in conflict and usually quite parallel.

The only personal opinion that I posted was; [IMHO is just a small, even tiny part of a percent. DOES EXIST.] in post #11. Which was exponentially less than esy said.

I suggested [standardized acceptance of POST GUIDANCE STANDARDS] by LEAs statewide. But again. Those standards are created BY LE, FOR LE.
And are assuredly NOT ME TELLING LE HOW TO DO THEIR JOB. No matter how hard anyone twists my words to try to fit their preconceived notions.

I intentionally posted ONLY vids of MSM broadcasts. I don't waste my time on the asinine [audit dildos]. Those BAD OPTICS broadcasts have been seen by untold millions of TV viewers for years. Check the dates on them. Denial of the issue isnt a viable option at this juncture. IMHO.

Now for lucky ? #7. Are you here to contribute to the discussion of the likely harm of bills like AB-742, and how to mitigate the damage it could do? I asked because you have yet to do so.

One more bit of my opinion ..... 1. recognize a problem. 2. deal with the problem for best outcome possible.

Common sense crosses all vocational boundaries. If you dont do #1, you cant do #2. Then you are stuck with whatever others do with the problem.

Be Safe, and if you decide to learn welding. PM me I do stick and MIG, but dont have a TIG.

[pacrat]

3 days of crickets. 0 answers.

Here are a couple of guys that are respected EXPERTS in the LE-K9 world in Ca. Please refer to their opinions of what POLICY and CASE LAW applies to justifiable deployment of a K9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KFNLRQhSA

Note the TITLE OF THIS VID. [How we can STOP California's BAN on Police K9s!]

The relevant policy-case laws are discussed from 2:30 to 6:06.

AGAIN, MHO is that actually adhering to those Ca. POST established guidelines, and denying the media the Bloody Bad Optics. Could possibly help improve optics.

Bye, and Be Safe

[GizmoSD]

Jesus dude. You?re a gem. Sorry, I?ve been at work?54 hours in the last three days. Sorry I don?t have the free time available to command the internet like you do.

Anyway, you post a bunch of links to allude to a stance that there might be a problem with training. You argue K9s don?t have a POST standard, yet you have no clue that they actually do. But that?s ok, how would anyone expect you to know anything about police work, or K9?s that isn?t free information available on the internet? You allude that a POST standard is some kind of ?fix?. ?for cops by cops?. You?ve clearly never worked with anyone at POST.

This whole thread is you suggesting change is needed in the K9 policy arena. You should write your own bill. If you don?t like the bills being written, vote smarter, or better yet, run yourself.

You?re incorrigible, and cops try to point out the flaws in your logic, but you miss it. You simply can?t be wrong. That?s ok, we?re used to it.

You win. We all submit to your bottomless wisdom. You?re right about everything. Please tell us other ways you believe we can make our profession better. We?re all ears.

Since you?re full of wisdom and know all the fixes, please tell us how SB58 will benefit police and the citizens of California. Two of the co-authors are the same, so the flawless logic must flow across both bills.

[eta34]

Correct me if I?m wrong, but aren?t the POST K9 standards just guidelines? Last I checked, they were best practices and not mandates. If this is what pacrat is referencing, I don?t disagree.

[GizmoSD]

Everything from POST is guideline. Nothing is mandatory. Traditionally seen as ?best practices.?

There are agencies that don?t participate in POST.

[SDDAVE56]

Legislative Mandated Training

https://post.ca.gov/legislative-mandated-training

[GizmoSD]

Correct. Legislatively mandated vs POST directive. Two different things.

[eta34]

There are no major CA police departments who aren?t POST. You know that.

Yes, the CA legislature mandates training. I would argue that standardized K9 training should be mandated/certified through POST.

[pacrat]

Gizmo said; Bolded emphasis is in response.

[1] ... Anyway, you post a bunch of links to allude to a stance that there might be a problem with training.

^^^ Try to be accurate at least part of the time. I ALLUDED TO NOTHING. I posted the vid links in DIRECT REBUTTAL to Grobie claiming:

{Leave it to stupid woke politicians to fix a PROBLEM THAT NEVER EXISTED.}


[2] ... You argue K9s don?t have a POST standard, yet you have no clue that they actually do.

^^^ That is NOT JUST A BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION OF ANYTHING I DID SAY. IT IS YOU, INTENTIONALLY PARAPHRASING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I DID ACTUALLY SAY. THEN FALSELY ATTRIBUTING YOUR REVERSAL AS MY WORDS.

It was ME THAT BROUGHT THE POST STANDARD GUIDELINE TO THE DISCUSSION. I ALSO MENTIONED AND REFERRED TO THEM 8 TIMES. PRIOR TO YOUR FALSE CLAIM

[3] ... This whole thread is you suggesting change is needed in the K9 policy arena.

^^^ I suggested STATE STANDARDIZATION OF THE POST K-9 GUIDELINES. That you FALSELY CLAIMED, that I was unaware of. And even posted a link to.

K-9 policies, in the near future WILL change. Which has nothing to do with me. Due to PUBLIC, and now POLITICAL pressures, [AB-742] because of the BAD OPTICS VIEWED BY MILLIONS OF CITIZENS.

The Grobies of the world can ignore it, but that will not mitigate the change.

<<< snip >>> Not gonna respond to any more nonsense vitriolic ramblings.


[4] ... Since you?re full of wisdom and know all the fixes, please tell us how SB58 will benefit police and the citizens of California. Two of the co-authors are the same, so the flawless logic must flow across both bills.

^^^ Since you are unaware of the rules of CG FORUMS. SB-58 is narcotics related, and OT for this thread. So I will not be responding.

Words do matter. So WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN THIS THREAD?

Being a LE K-9 handler is a recognised specialty classification within different divisions of LEAs. And does require a certain level of expertise. By YOUR OWN OMISSION, when you answered my unasked question, you stated:

I?m a narcotics sgt at a large Southern California department.

You made no self claim to any K-9 expertise. Or that you were an expert K-9 handler.

Then later you said;

Answering my question is relevant because this forum is designed to provide a space for the public to ask questions of experts in a field.

I will suggest, you might want to work on your reading comprehension and retention skills.

And since you have still not contributed anything to the topic of discussion. And only wasted my time, and all the other readers, with unfounded, untrue, falsehoods, snide remarks, condescension, and general nonsense. Likely because you didn't read/understand what I posted.

I will no longer respond to you.

Bye

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by eta34

Correct me if I?m wrong, but aren?t the POST K9 standards just guidelines? Last I checked, they were best practices and not mandates. If this is what pacrat is referencing, I don?t disagree.

^^^ YOU ARE NOT WRONG

Originally Posted by SDDAVE56

Legislative Mandated Training

https://post.ca.gov/legislative-mandated-training

Originally Posted by eta34

There are no major CA police departments who aren?t POST. You know that.

Yes, the CA legislature mandates training. I would argue that standardized K9 training should be mandated/certified through POST.

If Gizmo had simply read post 13. He would have already known that Ca POST K-9 Guideline were VOLUNTARY.

I posted a direct link and stated such.

If LEA in this state had stepped up and made, https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_d...ations/K-9.pdf
A standard requirement for K9 teams. Which has been available to them since 1992.

From the FORWARD of the POST publication in link.

This update, developed between November 2011 and October 2013, aims to refine and
streamline the guidelines which were in use for more than a decade. POST recognized
that agencies utilize K-9 teams in various capacities and with differing expectations.
Additionally, many more specialized K-9 team functions have developed in the two
decades since POST first created the guidelines. As a result, POST determined it would
not attempt to comprehensively standardize all functions. Instead, these guidelines
recommend minimum training and evaluation benchmarks for K-9 Patrol and Detection
functions. They are for the voluntary use of law enforcement agencies and are sufficiently
general to accommodate differing agencies? policies regarding operational deployment of
K-9 teams.

BE SAFE ALL ...... Iam Outa here.