Then you've carved out your own personal definition of "bastard" and shouldn't be surprised when people don't understand what you're talking about.

"Bastard" ≠ "dangerous as hell and not to be trusted"

This is - frankly - an issue endemic to the ACAB crowd. I've had people carrying that torch claim that "all" doesn't mean "all," and now you're essentially saying "bastard" doesn't mean "bastard."

Thats a wildly different thing than ascribing dogs the mental capacity to make a moral choice such as joining or not joining the police though. A dog is entirely just what the people raising and training him make him to be.

No police attack dog wants to fuck you up for protesting, they do it because their police human tells them to and they feel their pack/family threatened, and they have learned that is what they should do if their human gives that command. But they never chose that, or can even comprehend the morality of the situation.

So they could never be considered responsible, or legitimate targets. Only harm the animals if you absolutely must to protect yourself.

What exact "break" do you mean? Like I'm going to offer my throat to tear because he's just a good pupper? Nobody here is that colossally stupid.

Shitting on some dog that has zero idea what the moral and ethical ramifications of what it does is plainly ridiculous, and serves only to cast doubt on the rest of critics of law enforcement and hinder reform.