I don’t know if that was a reply to me, but if it was, it wasn’t pertinent to what I said.
There’s also a lot of ambiguity about what “using dogs as weapons” means – there are certainly interpretations where I would completely agree with that, and it’s entirely possible that police have abused dogs in this way and endangered civilians. But, as with guns and police shootings, the solution is to correct the police behaviour, not ban the tools.
But by way of further clarification of moral vs legal rights, the strengthened legislation to protect law enforcement animals comes from a place that philosophically and culturally has always placed a high premium on moral considerations. Here’s a bit more background on why the new legislation was called “Quanto’s Law”:
On July 24, 2015, the Justice for Animals in Service Act, or Quanto’s Law, was enacted as part of the federal animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, making the harming or killing of police, military or other service animals a special offence.
The law’s more common name is a memorial to Police Dog Quanto, a German shepherd with four years of service and more than 100 arrests to his name, who was killed on the job in Edmonton on October 7, 2013.
Paul Vukmanich, who killed Police Dog Quanto, was sentenced to 26 months in prison after pleading guilty to six charges in court, including one charge for killing the dog. But the short prison sentence was controversial and sparked a nationwide conversation about the need for specific laws to address service animal cruelty.
https://humanecanada.ca/our-work/focus-areas/animals-and-the-law/federal-legislation/quantos-law/
They’re policing. And, apparently, sometimes bad police behaviour misuses and abuses the dogs. As I said above, that’s on bad police behaviour and should be addressed as such, it’s not on the dogs who dutifully do what they were trained to do and, in the moment, ordered to do, and usually provide very valuable service.