The same question again and again

The Independent Police Conduct authority has found police were unjustified in using an attack dog against a fleeing child:

Police were not justified in using a police dog to bite a young offender following a pursuit, according to an Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report.

The 14-year-old was bitten as he ran away from the car he was driving in rural south of Hamilton two years ago.

The IPCA report noted the young person spent two days in hospital after being bitten on his leg by the dog.

It said the injury was "severe" and he may need skin grafts in future.

Which sounds an awful lot like wounding with intent, a crime carrying a penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Alternatively, insofar as it was intended as a punishment for fleeing, its torture. The IPCA found that the use of force was disproportionate and unnecessary, and cannot be justified under either s39 or s40 of the Crimes Act. So why isn't this cop being prosecuted? And the simple answer is "because they wore a uniform". But every time they look the other way on crimes by one of their own, the police look more and more like a criminal organisation. When are we going to bring them under control?