From the article...
A man with a 20-year criminal history...

A jury convicted Henry Sailes, 35, of Bradenton of the felony crime of injuring a police dog in February [red]along with[/red] a charge of obstructing an officer...

Sailes was wanted on a series of warrants in May 2002 when he ran from police...

a habitual offender...

Quoted:

At no time did I say or suggest that this guy should have been given a ticker tape parade and a key to the city instead of being cuffed and stuffed. He had a warrant and he ran from the popo.

But he got [b]8 years for kicking the dog[/b], although his kick failed to injure said dog. Thank God he didn't actually hurt the dog; he'd be on death row now.

Quoted:
I agree.

The whole dog is an officer bit is a bunch of bull**it.

Giving an animal equal billing or more so than a human is a joke and a sign of the decay of our government and individual rights.

Their dog should be treated like my dog, in regards to the law.

Good Post.  

The hypocrisy is palpable.

Quoted:
 Exactly!  If a cop dog is treated as an equal (basically) to a human cop, then my dog should be treated as a member of my family and an equal (in the eyes of the law).  Therefore the dipshit cop that shot that dog should've been charged with umm, murder?

Quoted:
Those of you who hold that police canines are expendable tools of force obviously did not see the Tom Hanks' movie "Turner and Hooch" at the EXTREMELY IMPRESSIONABLE age of eight years old, as I did.  I cried myself to sleep that night, and have not been able to shake the end of that movie from my conscience since then (15 years).  

Texas Pending Legislation

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the efficient use of police service animals.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Chapter 38, Penal Code, is amended by adding Section 38.151 to read as follows:

Sec. 38.151. INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS.  (a) In this section:

(1)  "Area of control" includes a vehicle, trailer, kennel, pen, or yard.

(2)  "Handler or rider" means a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer who is specially trained to use a police service animal for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes.

(3)  "Police service animal" means a dog, horse, or other domesticated animal that is specially trained for use by a handler or rider.

(b)  A person commits an offense if the person recklessly:

(1)  taunts, torments, or strikes a police service animal;

(2)  throws an object or substance at a police service animal;

(3)  interferes with or obstructs a police service animal or interferes with or obstructs the handler or rider of a police service animal in a manner that:

(A)  inhibits or restricts the handler's or rider's control of the animal; or

(B)  deprives the handler or rider of control of the animal;

(4)  releases a police service animal from its area of control;

(5)  enters the area of control of a police service animal without the effective consent of the handler or rider, including placing food or any other object or substance into that area;

(6)  injures or kills a police service animal; or

(7)  engages in conduct likely to injure or kill a police service animal, including administering or setting a poison, trap, or any other object or substance.

(c)  An offense under this section is:

(1)  a Class C misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(1);

(2)  a Class B misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(2);

(3)  a Class A misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), or (5);

[red](4)  a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or

(5)  a felony of the third degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by killing a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal. [/red]

SECTION 2.  Subchapter E, Chapter 826, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Section 826.048 to read as follows:

Sec. 826.048.  EXEMPTION FROM QUARANTINE REQUIREMENT FOR POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS.  (a) In this section, "handler or rider" and "police service animal" have the meanings assigned by Section 38.151, Penal  Code.

(b)  A police service animal is exempt from the quarantine requirement of this subchapter if the animal bites a person while the animal is under routine veterinary care or while the animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes.  If after biting the person the animal exhibits any abnormal behavior, the law enforcement agency and the animal's handler or rider shall make the animal available within a reasonable time for testing by the local health authority.

SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 1999.

SECTION 4.  The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.

To summarize the reasonable conclusions drawn by these case decisions, eight key guidelines governing the use of Police Service Dogs are presented in brief:

1): [red]Canines are a locating tool. Upon the location of the suspect, a use of force by
either the handler or the dog may or may not be necessary. The suspect controls this decision. [/red] The handler and the dog merely react and respond to what the suspect dictates. Law enforcement is simply a reactive business. The suspect dictates and controls his own destiny. One court concluded the criminals can largely control the circumstances of their crimes and can thus minimize the risk that force will be necessary.

2): The use of Police Service Dogs is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v Connor. Excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test. Taking into consideration the
totality of the circumstances, using the information available to the officer(s)
at the time of the incident, a three-part test should be used to satisfy and justify a canine deployment:
A) The severity of the crime at issue;
B) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the law enforcement officers or others;
C) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.