# K9 apprehension in kentucky



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/k-9-stops-suspect-who-fled-police-in-kentucky



Kinda reinforces my belief that even the strongest dogs have to re-bite in some scenarios.


----------



## Oscar Mora

I like how the guy starts pushing the dogs head to see if maybe he lets go. lol


----------



## Tiago Fontes

Nice dog...


----------



## James Downey

Is it just me, or did it look like the dog just had the guys shorts....Seems odd the dog went for the only place the man was clothed.


----------



## Lou Castle

More complete video. Interesting method of getting the dog to release. 

http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...LKY/-/9718340/10960374/-/75qodwz/-/index.html



And when that didn't work, here is how they finally got the dog to release the suspect. 

http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...og/-/9718340/10926000/-/107l40jz/-/index.html


----------



## brad robert

That dog really worked that hold.OOuch!


----------



## rick smith

watched only the last clip
- K9 did his job ok even tho he needed a little more help to get pulled out of the car (no biggy)
- wish the camera had stayed on the apprehension
- anyway...suspect is nearly naked...obviously no weps on him except his knuckles, feet, forehead and teeth 
.....and on the ground surrounded by more LEOS

Q - isn't the dog's job done at that point ????

- NO comment on the outing.....
- really would like to hear K9 LEOS comments regarding what they saw in the clip regarding the dog/handling


----------



## David Frost

Tactically, not all that much to say, it wasn't bad tactics. There is always safety and less chance of something going wrong in numbers. They don't know he isn't armed until he's out of the vehicle. Because he doesn't have a weapon on him doesn't mean there wasn't one nearby in the vehicle. The dog remained until the subject was under control of the other officers. It's hard to tell if the dog was just focused on the clothes. I think the dog was just focused on maintaining the bite. As for the "out", we don't know if the dog would not release or not. The handler never tried to do a "hard" or "tactical" out. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say the officer just took the easy way to get rid of the dog.

DFrost


----------



## Benjamin Allanson

Whats the thinking behind waiting once the suspect is out of the vehicle? Hes clearly out on the ground with no weapon. The officer is just standing their letting the dog bite, why not immediately once hes sees no weapon in hand, apprehend the suspect or at least immobilize his arms. You can see while the officer is waiting the suspect brings his hands to the dogs head, he could have gouged an eye or whipped a knife out of his pocket in that amount of time. It wasnt until the suspect put his hands on the dog that the officer started slapping him. 

This is just an observation was wondering if doing what he did was procedural or if it was just a situational thing, maybe just high stress and took him a little longer to see he had no weapon.


----------



## David Frost

Benjamin Allanson said:


> Whats the thinking behind waiting once the suspect is out of the vehicle? Hes clearly out on the ground with no weapon. The officer is just standing their letting the dog bite, why not immediately once hes sees no weapon in hand, apprehend the suspect or at least immobilize his arms. You can see while the officer is waiting the suspect brings his hands to the dogs head, he could have gouged an eye or whipped a knife out of his pocket in that amount of time. It wasnt until the suspect put his hands on the dog that the officer started slapping him.
> 
> This is just an observation was wondering if doing what he did was procedural or if it was just a situational thing, maybe just high stress and took him a little longer to see he had no weapon.


Even in your own words you say "he could have gouged an eye or whipped a knife out of his pocket in that amount of time." The K9 kept the guy busy until other officers could subdue him. If the suspect did happen to bring out a knife, the officer is in position to react with more force.

DFrost


----------



## Benjamin Allanson

That makes sense. Keep the officer in a position of control. If the suspect were to bring out a knife and try to stab the dog, does the officer have the right to use lethal force?


----------



## rick smith

guess i shoulda watched closer 
...thought the scumbag was well clear of the car, naked from the waist down only wearing his boxers and on the deck, with other LEOS moving in RAPIDLY, and "armed" with the body parts i mentioned, not even knowing if he had the brains to use any of em 
- i could see keepin the K9 longer on a fully clothed scumbag, my Q was, wasn't THAT dog's job finished at THAT point ?

- btw, shouldn't even a PSD OUT when told to, and then forcefully (or "tactically") outed if it DIDN'T comply within the handlers command ?
- i guess i'm getting a bit worked up because that didn't look like the slickest handling to me ...more like a made-for-TV "cut off shorts to remove dog" :-(
.... no wonder it got comments by the media 

and i'll bet a few bucks that handler has already caught a few comments from his buds about his new "outing" style 

-my i hope is that it's not : "the longer u resist and the more LE it takes to get you, the longer the dog is gonna have you" type of attitude :-(((((


----------



## Howard Knauf

Rick....not just for cops...
http://www.google.com/search?q=Thun...Q&biw=1000&bih=581&sei=U5ORT8KWGYyy8QSropmGBA


----------



## R Janssen

The dog did a good job.
That he go's for the shorts is not that hard to undertand as we train the dogs on people WITH clothes. 
Once he figured out that he could bite there as well as (normally) on the limbs, he clamps down full and hard.
Althrou the hander looks overwelmed at times with the situation, he needs to train himself on how to "out" a dog "manually" , you cant blame the dog for that. The rest is politics. :mrgreen:


----------



## Howard Knauf

René Hendriks said:


> he needs to train himself on how to "out" a dog "manually" , you cant blame the dog for that. The rest is politics. :mrgreen:


 The dog has to out on command immediately by law or a civil suit will be forthcoming. If you take a PSD off strong you better have a damn good justification for it nowadays.


----------



## Drew Peirce

Thats completely false howard.


----------



## Howard Knauf

OK. In my effort to make people realize how serious this is I may have mis-spoke. It may not be law, but it damn sure will get you jammed up in civil court for violation of civil rights and excessive force. Gotta be a law violated in there somewhere.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Lou Castle said:


> More complete video. Interesting method of getting the dog to release.
> 
> http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...LKY/-/9718340/10960374/-/75qodwz/-/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> And when that didn't work, here is how they finally got the dog to release the suspect.
> 
> http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...og/-/9718340/10926000/-/107l40jz/-/index.html


We really don't know what would have worked or what the dog has been trained to do, do we? I see a dog that did his job well ...extracted a criminal who assaulted an innocent citizen and then ran from LE endangering the lives of countless others. Once the suspect was extracted from the vehicle, he continued to fight the dog and the officers. The dog assisted while the suspect was subdued and apprehended. Maybe the officer with the knife saw the opportunity to cut the suspect's shorts once he was under control and took it. We don't know if the handler even tried to out the dog with a command or properly lift the dog off. For sure, I'd rather see a dog go in a vehicle like that and fight confidently than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTDn0-jIm7k

Whose side are you really on, Lou?


----------



## rick smith

Howard
what you said makes perfect common sense in my simple mind whether it is written in some statute or not.....
- i'm no PSD trainer and i'm no scumbag lawyer either, but if i was one and saw a clip of my scumbag client on the deck getting chewed on by a PSD with a K9 handler yelling OUT while yanking furiously on it's lead, i'd probably see dollar signs 

so to the other poster ... why was he so completely wrong ????


----------



## David Frost

rick smith said:


> - btw, shouldn't even a PSD OUT when told to, and then forcefully (or "tactically") outed if it DIDN'T comply within the handlers command ?
> -
> and i'll bet a few bucks that handler has already caught a few comments from his buds about his new "outing" style
> 
> -my i hope is that it's not : "the longer u resist and the more LE it takes to get you, the longer the dog is gonna have you" type of attitude :-(((((



Yes, in a perfect world, the dog should out. In this video, we don't really know if the handler tried to out the dog. Well trained dogs don't always react as we expect them too, that's just a reality of this type of work. 

I'd take some of that bet as well. You know that handler has been the butt of several jokes.

That would be my hope as well. Our job isn't to punish, only to apprehend using the minimum amount of force necessary. While, on rare occasion, we do get flooded with the apprehension where law enforcement appeared to use more force than was necessary, there are thousands of incidents that never see the light of day where the response was handled correctly. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker

It could just be me, but I think that my instincts would be to fight the dogs somewhat...probably not even consciously...must be hard to just give up everything, while the dog is actively fighting you...and lay still and let him continue to bite you.


----------



## Brian McQuain

Joby Becker said:


> It could just be me, but I think that my instincts would be to fight the dogs somewhat...probably not even consciously...must be hard to just give up everything, while the dog is actively fighting you...and lay still and let him continue to bite you.


 
Dont give them a reason to send the dog and you wont get bit.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Joby Becker said:


> It could just be me, but I think that my instincts would be to fight the dogs somewhat...probably not even consciously...must be hard to just give up everything, while the dog is actively fighting you...and lay still and let him continue to bite you.


 This is one reason, among many, why you train a PSD to out on a fighting/resisting person. Not saying they should have here but no excuses. A good lawyer will take an incident like this on film and show it frame by frame to a bunch of ignorant people on a jury who will surely find you guilty of putting their poor client through 10 minutes of hell (real time video being only 30 seconds) for no reason.


----------



## Howard Knauf

> We really don't know what would have worked or what the dog has been trained to do, do we? I see a dog that did his job well ...extracted a criminal who assaulted an innocent citizen and then ran from LE endangering the lives of countless others.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTDn0-jIm7k
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is....there is a standard to be met for a certified PSD and that standard requires an out on command with no physical touch by the handler. Doesn't matter what he was trained to do, he made the standard which should be good for the year not just cert day. The dog did the first half of his job well, he failed the second half. Scratch that...the handler and trainer failed the dog.
> 
> Regarding the funny video you posted....that dog turned out to be real nice later. I wish his good apprehensions had as much exposure as that bad one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Joby Becker

I have no plans to have a police K9 sent to bite me, unless I get a phone call this weekend, from my cop friend.


----------



## Brian McQuain

Joby Becker said:


> I have no plans to have a police K9 sent to bite me, unless I get a phone call this weekend, from my cop friend.


 
Ha! Wouldnt think so...wasnt really referring to you, specifically.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Brian McQuain said:


> Ha! Wouldnt think so...wasnt really referring to you, specifically.


 I don't know...Joby does some shady stuff.:-\"


----------



## Lou Castle

Can some of you watch this video again please? http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...LKY/-/9718340/10960374/-/75qodwz/-/index.html 

This time, instead of watching the dog/handler as they deploy, pay attention to the top-edge-of-the-door-area of the suspect vehicle as the suspect opens the door. At about 1:33 on the video you'll see something that no one has mentioned. What occurs at that moment is why I think that this bite should not have occurred at all, or at least, why it should have been stopped ASAP. 

In this video http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...og/-/9718340/10926000/-/107l40jz/-/index.html It's shown at 1:14.


----------



## Joby Becker

I just ate (stole) the teenagers left over ribs, he is gonna be pissed.


----------



## Brian McQuain

Lou Castle said:


> Can some of you watch this video again please? http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...LKY/-/9718340/10960374/-/75qodwz/-/index.html
> 
> This time, instead of watching the dog/handler as they deploy, pay attention to the top-edge-of-the-door-area of the suspect vehicle as the suspect opens the door. At about 1:33 on the video you'll see something that no one has mentioned. What occurs at that moment is why I think that this bite should not have occurred at all, or at least, why it should have been stopped ASAP.
> 
> In this video http://www.wlky.com/news/local-news...og/-/9718340/10926000/-/107l40jz/-/index.html It's shown at 1:14.


 
Eh. Get him Banjo!


----------



## Bob Scott

18 yrs old and no record. His parents are suprised. He must have gone bad yesterday and they just missed it.](*,)


----------



## Thomas Barriano

How easy it is to determine "the bite shouldn't have occurred' from behind a computer screen. 
Here's a clue for all the eighteen year olds with no police records
Don't carjack vehicles and throw their owners to the ground.
Don't try to outrun the police
That will keep your record clean.
If you're stupid enough to steal a car and try to outrun the Police and you're finally forced to a stop?
Keep the door shut and the windows up and your hands on top of your head UNTIL you're directed to do otherwise. That will keep your dumb ass from getting bit.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Joby Becker said:


> I have no plans to have a police K9 sent to bite me, unless I get a phone call this weekend, from my cop friend.


Oh come on Joby, seems to me without such, your encyclopedic story book of crazy shit that might have happened, just won't be complete.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Thomas Barriano said:


> How easy it is to determine "the bite shouldn't have occurred' from behind a computer screen.
> Here's a clue for all the eighteen year olds with no police records
> Don't carjack vehicles and throw their owners to the ground.
> Don't try to outrun the police
> That will keep your record clean.
> If you're stupid enough to steal a car and try to outrun the Police and you're finally forced to a stop?
> Keep the door shut and the windows up and your hands on top of your head UNTIL you're directed to do otherwise. That will keep your dumb ass from getting bit.



Thats good fatherly advice for thekids, should be a mandatory course of drill practise in every american school, like kids in the 50's did the 'duck and cover' drill.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Thomas Barriano said:


> How easy it is to determine "the bite shouldn't have occurred' from behind a computer screen.
> Here's a clue for all the eighteen year olds with no police records
> Don't carjack vehicles and throw their owners to the ground.
> Don't try to outrun the police
> That will keep your record clean.
> If you're stupid enough to steal a car and try to outrun the Police and you're finally forced to a stop?
> Keep the door shut and the windows up and your hands on top of your head UNTIL you're directed to do otherwise. That will keep your dumb ass from getting bit.


Stupidity should be painful ...in this case, it was. 

I'm sure it's easy to sit behind a computer and watch a video frame by frame to decide how the handler shoulda' or coulda' deployed his dog. I bet it's a little different when you're there in the heat of the moment and you have seconds to anticipate the suspect's next move. I say, better to be safe than sorry and wind up alive than give the benefit of the doubt to the carjacker who just ran from the police through multiple counties.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Stupidity should be painful ...in this case, it was.
> 
> I'm sure it's easy to sit behind a computer and watch a video frame by frame to decide how the handler shoulda' or coulda' deployed his dog. I bet it's a little different when you're there in the heat of the moment and you have seconds to anticipate the suspect's next move. I say, better to be safe than sorry and wind up alive than give the benefit of the doubt to the carjacker who just ran from the police through multiple counties.



Ariel 

I totally 100% agree. Good for Banjo and his handler, nice job.
They deserve a citation, not to be second guessed by Internet
Experts


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Gotta admit Ariel, all what u said plus thinking all the while, am I gonna lose my job and catch a civil case, am I gonna bring media hell down on my dept.....etc.

Soon the job will be too tough for anyone to do.

I applaud the guys that do it well.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I asked people to take another look at the videos, specifically two areas that show something that everyone seems to have missed; as soon as the suspect opened his door, he raised his hands and tried to surrender! Once that happens any use of force is inappropriate, excessive and opens the handler, his department, and his trainer to liability. Besides the legal ramifications, It's morally wrong to use force on someone who has surrendered. 

It's a pretty close call there, so I'll give it to the handler, that it was too close for anyone to be able to have stopped a dog from biting at that range and that speed. But the dog certainly should have been outed from the bite immediately, as soon as the handler could do so. The problem seems to be that this handler was incapable of outing the dog with a voice command. We never see him try to take the dog off with a "tactical lift." But perhaps it's been edited out. But he does flank the dog in efforts to get him to release. This also does not work.


----------



## Lou Castle

Howard Knauf said:


> OK. In my effort to make people realize how serious this is I may have mis-spoke. It may not be law, but it damn sure will get you jammed up in civil court for violation of civil rights and excessive force. Gotta be a law violated in there somewhere.


While Howard was a bit too absolute here, we can be pretty sure that at some point, during his certification this handler had to verbally out his dog. Just about every certification requires it. This incident is a good example of why it's necessary to be able to do it in real life. Of course sometimes stuff happens and the dog does not comply. When that occurs, the handler must physically be able to do it. If he can't, he's in violation of the 4th amendment that requires that a seizure of a person be done "reasonably." If excessive force is used, then it's not reasonable, and the handler is subject to a 42 USC § 1983 violation, for depriving the person of his federal civil right to be free from unreasonable seizures. 

While there is no law that specifically requires that a handler be able to verbally out his dog, the law on this is clear. Kerr v. West Palm Beach held that


> The severity of an apprehended suspect's injuries can be reduced if the handler has *complete control *over the actions of his dog. *With such control, the handler can recall or restrain the dog before a bite even occurs. *Alternately, the handler can quickly remove the dog from the apprehended suspect, minimizing the possibility that the suspect will be further injured in an ensuing struggle. Since a police dog that is apprehending a fleeing suspect is often far in front of its handler, * canine law enforcement training stresses the use of oral commands, which the dog can obey even when its handler is at a distance, * rather than "leash" commands, which require the officer to touch the dog or, in some instances, to pull the dog off the suspect. [Emphasis Added]


----------



## Lou Castle

Let me start with a disclaimer. I wasn't there and the only thing I'm drawing information from is the videos. I'm also sitting in the comfort of my office and it's very calm and quiet here. I'm not at the scene where events are rapidly unfolding and I'm not in any potential danger, as were the officers at the scene. Common sense and case law, (Graham v. Connor) require that we judge these events from the standpoint of the officers _"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."_ But a jury may be deciding this officer's fate and they'll be looking at the videos very critically. I did as well. 



David Frost said:


> Tactically, not all that much to say, it wasn't bad tactics. There is always safety and less chance of something going wrong in numbers.


It's a normal human thought process to think that there is "safety in numbers." But in many cases, and this is one, it increases the risk. The statement IS true if you're talking about a very well trained group, that has trained together, and has one consistent policy and way of doing things. This situation is certainly not that. There are "40-50" officers present, perhaps from as many as 4-5 different agencies. The chance of them having trained together, and having one consistent policy is very small. 

This was one suspect in one car. I realize that this is a relatively rural area but 'round here, a more urban area, that's a "two (three at the most) car pursuit" (if the cars have two officers each) unless the crook is known to be heavily armed. A K−9 unit and a supervisor can also join in. I can't conceive of a pursuit where this many units should be directly involved. There may be more units involved in a pursuit, but only indirectly. They'll be paralleling the pursuit, in the event that the primary or secondary unit crashes, they'll be able to take his place. They're also ready in case the suspect makes a turn and one of the units directly involved in the pursuit can't make the turn and overshoots it. They'll be in position to take it over. Having this many units in a pursuit is not good tactics. 

When the suspect in this incident is finally stopped, one officer in a khaki uniform, approaches by going around the front of the suspect vehicle. If the suspect had even accidentally hit the gas pedal, he could have been killed. Perhaps he saw the suspect put the car into park but even without that, there's no reason to approach. How about if he stays behind cover and concealment and they order the crook out of his car? He needlessly puts himself into danger. Not good tactics. 

As the officer in khaki rounds the front of the suspect vehicle we can see that he's pointing a TASER at the suspect, not his handgun. At this point, when he does not know if the suspect is armed or not, that's a poor choice of tools. There are at least two agencies present right at the suspect vehicle, and it's doubtful that they've trained together on tactics for Taser takedowns. In a situation where deadly force may be justified, if the decision is made to use a Taser instead of a handgun, there should be at least one "designated shooter" to back up the Taser officer in the event that he misses or the Taser does not immediately incapacitate the suspect. But in this case, since his weapon is pointed back towards the other officers at the scene, perhaps it's a good thing that he's not using his gun! His position puts him in the line of fire, if other officers, behind the suspect vehicle, have to fire their guns. They may not fire for fear of hitting him or they may fire and hit him. In any case, turning this into a cross fire situation, is not good tactics. 

The handler does a similar thing. Instead of staying behind the cover/concealment that his police car affords, he runs up on the suspect vehicle. It's safer to stay back and to order the suspect out of his vehicle. Then he can make an initial determination as to whether or not the suspect is armed. Instead, as many do, he charges the car. When the suspect opens his door, the K−9 handler is in the open. If the suspect had been armed and in an assaultive mood, he could easily have shot the handler. Putting yourself in this position is not good tactics. 

More than likely the handler wants to apprehend the suspect before he can flee on foot, but in doing so, he needlessly puts himself into danger. Even if the suspect were to flee from the vehicle, the handler has told us that his "dog can run 35 to 40 mph." and that the dog is "going to catch the person, They're not going to be able to outrun him." So why approach when it increases the risk factor? It's not good tactics. 



David Frost said:


> They don't know he isn't armed until he's out of the vehicle. Because he doesn't have a weapon on him doesn't mean there wasn't one nearby in the vehicle.


Good point, and it underlines my thoughts that no one should have approached the suspect vehicle at all. But this is something that's seen quite frequently on reality TV cop shows and on the news. It's not good tactics. 



David Frost said:


> The dog remained until the subject was under control of the other officers.


And long after, as well. This dog should have been stopped before the bite or at least outed within seconds of the bite. 



David Frost said:


> It's hard to tell if the dog was just focused on the clothes.


I think that he was. The suspect is wearing shorts and shoes. There's more skin available than clothing. The dog could have bitten anywhere on the arm or leg, or the suspect's flank. Yet he chose to bite the only clothing that was worn, the shorts. And at the end, he's again on the clothing. 



David Frost said:


> I think the dog was just focused on maintaining the bite.


I think he was "focused on maintaining the bite" a little too much. 



David Frost said:


> As for the "out", we don't know if the dog would not release or not.
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that he would not. At one point the handler gives a couple of jerks on the leash. Then he flanks the dog. At one point he's shown jerking on the dog's collar and at the same time lifting the dog's back legs off the ground, with his right hand, flanking the dog.
> 
> The handler never tried to do a "hard" or "tactical" out.


True and I wonder why? Due to the lack of it I wonder if he had ever been trained in how to do it. Instead he flanks the dog for a very long time, even lifting the dog's back legs off the ground with this action, at the same time that he's jerking on the collar. This is, in effect a "tight leash bite" that has the effect of making a dog bite harder, not release the bite. The exact opposite of what he wants. Not good tactics. 



David Frost said:


> I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say the officer just took the easy way to get rid of the dog.


At the end of the situation, the dog is back to biting the suspect's clothing. The suspect is handcuffed, face down on the ground and is not moving. One officer is has his foot on the suspect's head, another has his foot on the suspect's back. There are two more officers holding onto the suspect's left leg, holding it raised up high, and not moving it, as the fifth officer cuts the suspect's shorts away to get the dog off the bite. That's _"the easy way to get rid of the dog?"_ How about simply giving an out command or failing that, how about lifting the dog off using a "tactical out?" 

This dog should have not have been allowed to bite at all. Failing that, he should have been outed as soon as possible after the bite occurred. It's obvious that this handler does not have control of his dog, he could not get him to release even after the suspect had been physically subdued and was not moving to any perceptible degree. Handlers should train so that they can out their dogs from suspect who are still moving. 

Had the handler stayed at his position of advantage, at his unit, this incident never would have hit the air. The suspect would not have been bitten, and we'd not be having this discussion.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> We really don't know what would have worked or what the dog has been trained to do, do we?


I think it's safe to say that the dog has been trained to bite. He's working at a fairly large police department, so more-than-likely he's been certified. More-than-likely that certification included a verbal command to release a bite. It's possible that he never trained his dog to release a bite from someone who was moving. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I see a dog that did his job well


As far as the bite work, I'll disagree. Biting a suspect's clothing does not control him. A PSD should initially bite flesh, not just clothing. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> ...extracted a criminal who assaulted an innocent citizen and then ran from LE endangering the lives of countless others.


Except that we're not in the punishment end of the criminal justice system. There was no reason for this bite if the officers had been trained properly (or if they'd followed their training). 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Once the suspect was extracted from the vehicle, he continued to fight the dog and the officers.


Maybe we're watching different videos!? I see the suspect bouncing around on the ground quite a bit. That appears to be a response to being jerked out of the car by the handler. Then when the dog finally bites flesh, the suspect puts his hand on the dog's muzzle. More than likely he's following a normal instinct to push the dog away from him. That's hardly _"fight[ing] the dog."_ He does not strike the dog with his hand. He does not kick the dog. Neither does he try to squirm away from the dog. All he does is to place his hand on the dog's muzzle. He also is not _"fight[ing] ... the officers."_ Likewise he does not hit or kick them or even try to do so. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> We don't know if the handler even tried to out the dog with a command or properly lift the dog off.


We can't hear anything that's going on, on the ground. But anyone who has any powers of observation can see that the handler is jerking on the leash several times. It's not a result of any body movement and it's not as a result of the suspect resisting. It's a good bet that he's trying to out his dog. A moment later he flanks the dog. Ariel is there some other reason that he might do that? 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Whose side are you really on, Lou?


I'm on the side of the law. When someone surrenders, as this suspect has, that's the end of all uses of force.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> How easy it is to determine "the bite shouldn't have occurred' from behind a computer screen.


It seems to be pretty hard. Even with my request for people to look at a specific piece of video, most seem to have missed the fact that this suspect tried to surrender _before _he was bitten. Yes, he shouldn't have jacked the victim. Yes, he should have stopped when the police were behind him with their lights and sirens going. Yes, he was foolish to open his door after his tires were flattened. But that's when he decided that his stupid game was over, and he raised his hands in surrender. THAT is when all uses of force should have stopped. The dog may have been too fast for the handler to stop him before the bite. But he should have outed him immediately after it occurred.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I'm sure it's easy to sit behind a computer and watch a video frame by frame to decide how the handler shoulda' or coulda' deployed his dog.


You'd think so wouldn't you. But you seem to have missed the fact that this suspect tried to surrender before he was bitten. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I bet it's a little different when you're there in the heat of the moment and you have seconds to anticipate the suspect's next move.


You're wrong. It's A LOT different. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I say, better to be safe than sorry and wind up alive than give the benefit of the doubt to the carjacker who just ran from the police through multiple counties.


Had these officers stayed back from the suspect's car in the first place, this bite never would have occurred.


----------



## Doug Zaga

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I asked people to take another look at the videos, specifically two areas that show something that everyone seems to have missed; as soon as the suspect opened his door, he raised his hands and tried to surrender! Once that happens any use of force is inappropriate, excessive and opens the handler, his department, and his trainer to liability. Besides the legal ramifications, It's morally wrong to use force on someone who has surrendered.
> 
> It's a pretty close call there, so I'll give it to the handler, that it was too close for anyone to be able to have stopped a dog from biting at that range and that speed. But the dog certainly should have been outed from the bite immediately, as soon as the handler could do so. The problem seems to be that this handler was incapable of outing the dog with a voice command. We never see him try to take the dog off with a "tactical lift." But perhaps it's been edited out. But he does flank the dog in efforts to get him to release. This also does not work.


 
Lou although it looks like his hand comes out what was the complete behavior of the subject ? He could have been yelling FUK you I am not coming out, he could have been reaching over the console with his right hand... I assume that the responding officers, fully knowing a Helicopter was above, that they were going to follow P&P's to a T...

I sensed the handler wanted the dog to push in and bite more than gym shorts looked like when he first came up on the dog he patted him to get him to push in and bite the leg???

Wonder if this is the dogs first live bite?


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> Let me start with a disclaimer. I wasn't there and the only thing I'm drawing information from is the videos. I'm also sitting in the comfort of my office and it's very calm and quiet here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dog should have not have been allowed to bite at all.



I expected nothing less from you. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker

Nicole Stark said:


> Oh come on Joby, seems to me without such, your encyclopedic story book of crazy shit that might have happened, just won't be complete.


unfortunately never gonna happen. I am usually very compliant if I have done something wrong.

I never would try to run or escape again, I got caught trying to run out of a house party, when I was 16. out of the 25 or so kids that ran out the back door, I got caught...

also tried to run away from a car accident that I was in when I was 16...

the 21 yr old that owned the 74' Camaro I was a passenger in, tried to outrun the police and tipped the car on its side around a hairpin turn on a country road (he was way ahead, might have got away if he didnt roll the car into a huge boulder someone had along the road in there yard). I climbed out the window (my side was up) and tried to run away...didn't get far, hit 2 electric fences in the dark, and finally settled on a small bush to hide behind, along a driveway...the cop pulled right up in the drive way, got out, grabbed me picked me up (weighed about 130 then) and started shaking the piss out of me...when he asked me why I ran, I didnt have a good answer, just like everyone else, I said I was scared, like everyone does, but I was really scared.. , I think that was my chance to get bit by a K9, but they didnt have one on scene, dammit..

on another note, we recently ran into a kid that got bit by a dog my friend bred and sold to a department, the kid is 19 and is friends with the son of the guy that bred the dog..

he said that the dog was a good dog, scared the shit out of him and ****ed his arm up real good...said he wont run ever again...


----------



## Lou Castle

Doug Zaga said:


> Lou although it looks like his hand comes out what was the complete behavior of the subject ? He could have been yelling FUK you I am not coming out, he could have been reaching over the console with his right hand...


You might want to watch it again on a big screen with HD. BOTH of his hands are up. 



Doug Zaga said:


> I assume that the responding officers, fully knowing a Helicopter was above, that they were going to follow P&P's to a T...


One would think that but it turns out that it's another place that common sense fails. There are many incidents of LE doing dumb things that are captured by their own dash cams. Mostly they vindicate us from spurious claims. But sometimes they're the main evidence against us.


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> I expected nothing less from you.
> 
> DFrost


I'd expect nothing less from anyone who saw that the suspect had raised both his hands in surrender. Don't you train your handlers that when the suspect gives up, that they should not have their dogs bite him?


----------



## mike suttle

Lou, I just realized who you really are........
You're that guy who testifies for the shit bags who sue the departments after they do something stupid and get themselves bit by a K-9.


----------



## Nicole Stark

ha ha Joby that was easy. I can just see you with grandkids swirling about your arm chair, eager with anticipation of another great story. "Grandpa, tell us again about that time you tripped over a rock and stumbled down a flight of stairs just before you discovered the world wasn't flat!"


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Before this topic goes down the toilet with more nit picking criticism based on watching the video frame by frame on a big screen TV.
Please ignore anything Mr Castle happens to post. Maybe if we ignore
him, he'll go away.


----------



## Doug Zaga

Thomas Barriano said:


> Before this topic goes down the toilet with more nit picking criticism based on watching the video frame by frame on a big screen TV.
> Please ignore anything Mr Castle happens to post. Maybe if we ignore
> him, he'll go away.


Play nice THOMAS!!!!


----------



## Lou Castle

mike suttle said:


> Lou, I just realized who you really are........
> You're that guy who testifies for the shit bags who sue the departments after they do something stupid and get themselves bit by a K-9.


Never testified against LE. Never will. So Mike, AGAIN YOU'RE WRONG! 

I'd not call what he did _"stupid,"_ but it sure was a mistake that had serious consequences.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Before this topic goes down the toilet with more nit picking criticism based on watching the video frame by frame on a big screen TV.


_"[N]itpicking"_ and _"watching the video frame by frame on a big screen TV"_ is EXACTLY what a jury will do. We should do the same, so that others don't repeat these errors. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Please ignore anything Mr Castle happens to post. Maybe if we ignore
> him, he'll go away.


I can see that your little vacation did nothing to educate you as to how to behave on a forum. Wondering if you're capable of following your own advice?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Lou Castle said:


> Never testified against LE. Never will. So Mike, AGAIN YOU'RE WRONG!
> 
> I'd not call what he did _"stupid,"_ but it sure was a mistake that had serious consequences.


A mistake?

From thefreedictionary.com:


Mistake 
n.
1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.
2. A misconception or misunderstanding.

Somehow I don't believe that boy didn't know what he was doing was wrong. It was a criminal and conscious decision to commit wrongdoing and that's stupid. Maybe I'm not enough of a politically correct liberal, but I think Lou's thinking is a big part of why our LEOs and military have such a difficult time doing their jobs. There's always someone looking over their shoulder telling them why they should have done something different or better or been more gentle with the criminals while the bad guys get a slap on the wrist and get sent on their way to do it again. Maybe if more criminals got bit or Tasered for committing crimes, there would be less repeat offenders. I bet the kid who got caned for vandalism in Singapore didn't return there with a fresh can of spray paint. And look at it this way, the carjacking kid could have gotten shot instead. I would take a bite to the thigh any day.


----------



## mike suttle

Lou Castle said:


> I'd not call what he did _"stupid,"_ but it sure was a mistake that had serious consequences.


OK Lou, maybe you would not call what that kid did stupid. 
If you don't think stealing a car and running through three counties from the police is stupid then I guess you and I are on totally different pages in this book of life buddy.
Out here where I live, we call shit like that STUPID!!


----------



## Doug Zaga

Mike,

I think we all agree that when a suspect, perp, inmate, pretrial detainee gives up regardless of the crime then NO force can be used....

The issue I have is we do not see what the suspect is doing nor do we hear what he is saying thus who is Lou or anyone to question the Use of Force! 

I do have a thought though... there was an officer positioned at 11:00 with a Taser would it be reasonable to assume if there was no need for the level of force by a K-9 that the officer would have used the Taser or commanded him out of the vehicle? Or is the Taser and K-9 the same level of force in most departments?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Doug Zaga said:


> I think we all agree that when a suspect, perp, inmate, pretrial detainee gives up regardless of the crime then NO force can be used....


I absolutely agree with that statement and hope it's not been interpreted that I believe the suspect should have been bitten, Tased, shot, etc. even though he gave up. However, from the angle the handler approaches and from the preceding events, I think it's impossible to assume that he knew the suspect gave up and decided to send his dog anyway. Additionally, once he was bitten we can't be sure if the suspect was writhing in pain or if he was fighting and flailing trying to get the dog off of him. I don't believe someone being bitten by a serious dog could freeze up like decoys do in training while the handler calmly outs his dog, but I also don't believe we can just assume if the dog was outed or recalled that the suspect would be compliant. Once the dog was on him, I think it was reasonable to use the dog until the other officers subdued and cuffed the suspect as they did in the video.


----------



## Barry Connell

Ariel Peldunas said:


> We really don't know what would have worked or what the dog has been trained to do, do we? I see a dog that did his job well ...extracted a criminal who assaulted an innocent citizen and then ran from LE endangering the lives of countless others. Once the suspect was extracted from the vehicle, he continued to fight the dog and the officers. The dog assisted while the suspect was subdued and apprehended. Maybe the officer with the knife saw the opportunity to cut the suspect's shorts once he was under control and took it. We don't know if the handler even tried to out the dog with a command or properly lift the dog off. For sure, I'd rather see a dog go in a vehicle like that and fight confidently than this:


Ariel, YEP, we have no idea if "outing" was even taking place at all. The handler also had the presence of mind to keep the other wound up officers away until the dog stabilized it. HOW MANY times have we seen other cops get bitten or hurt by a suspect for rushing in too quickly?

A question I pose is this.....WHY do we continually ask dogs to out statically at the end of a leash or off leash during actual combat. Between the suspects continued actions, the swarm of other cops, sirens wailing....why do we even take the chance?!?!?! The handler should go up, get control, order the out and then back away into a distant standby position (in my OWN opinion only)

Of course, as the Supreme Court has noted a couple times, we are all watching this from our comfy computer chairs and NOT from the "reasonable officer" perspective...


----------



## Chris Keister

Gonna just add two quick things......

1) we were not there and video does not show everything you can't ( or shouldn't ) try to make judgement on "objective reasonableness". Video does not tell the whole story. 

2) as much as I hate to say it I will agree with Lou on one thing. We have and train a "felony car stop" for a reason. Much safer if we call the suspect out of the car. Suspect refuses to come out or runs then the bite is much easier to justify under Graham v Connor. 

With that said, I can't say I have never made a tactical decision in the heat of the moment and not thought about it later and said to myself " that wasnt the smartest thing to do."


----------



## Barry Connell

Lou is correct....that kid had both hands in the air for the last couple minutes of the chase....he was CLEARLY surrendering (at XX miles per hour)

We could all see this very well from the helicopter....


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Lou Castle said:


> More complete video. Interesting method of getting the dog to release.


Obviously not using your "foolproof" method that is flawless in the heat of the moment!:roll:

Last resort method possibly? Here it is used again at 34 seconds!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQIbidj64Kk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You are failing the public by not getting the word out about your outing article


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Lou Castle said:


> I'd not call what he did _"stupid,"_ but it sure was a mistake that had serious consequences.


Yes stealing cars could have serious consequences! \\/
Perhaps cars should come with a warning labels stating so!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Timothy Stacy said:


> Obviously not using your "foolproof" method that is flawless in the heat of the moment!:roll:
> 
> Last resort method possibly? Here it is used again at 34 seconds!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQIbidj64Kk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> You are failing the public by not getting the word out about your outing article



so you grab the dogs flank area and calmy pull the dog away with the person in its mouth, thanks got it.


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Peter Cavallaro said:


> so you grab the dogs flank area and calmy pull the dog away with the person in its mouth, thanks got it.


Correct, that is what you do when Lou's method completely fails!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Timothy Stacy said:


> Correct, that is what you do when Lou's method completely fails!



Timothy,

I thought the "protocols" were 100% reliable and never failed?


----------



## Timothy Stacy

:-|


Thomas Barriano said:


> Timothy,
> 
> I thought the "protocols" were 100% reliable and never failed?


Some of it is confidential Thomas!
All I can tell you is that it requires many decoys in a suit but it has street creds of 100% effiency



Cause nobody uses it LMAO


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Timothy Stacy said:


> :-|
> 
> Some of it is confidential Thomas!
> All I can tell you is that it requires many decoys in a suit but it has street creds of 100% effiency
> 
> 
> 
> Cause nobody uses it LMAO


Thanks for the splaination Tim ;-)
The protocol has worked every time its been used which has been never! LMAO


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Thomas Barriano said:


> Thanks for the splaination Tim ;-)
> The protocol has worked every time its been used which has been never! LMAO


 Thanks for the new word 'splaination' I like it. claiming it as my own - too bad.


----------



## Joby Becker

Nicole Stark said:


> ha ha Joby that was easy. I can just see you with grandkids swirling about your arm chair, eager with anticipation of another great story. "Grandpa, tell us again about that time you tripped over a rock and stumbled down a flight of stairs just before you discovered the world wasn't flat!"


yer welcome


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Thanks for the new word 'splaination' I like it. claiming it as my own - too bad.


Peter,

It's a variation from the old I Love Lucy TV show from the 50's
when Ricky says "You've got some splainin to do Lucy". BUT since
Ricky and Lucy are both dead :-( Go ahead and claim it


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> A mistake?
> 
> From thefreedictionary.com: Mistake − 1. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness. 2. A misconception or misunderstanding.
> 
> Somehow I don't believe that boy didn't know what he was doing was wrong.





mike suttle said:


> OK Lou, maybe you would not call what that kid did stupid.
> If you don't think stealing a car and running through three counties from the police is stupid then I guess you and I are on totally different pages in this book of life buddy.
> Out here where I live, we call shit like that STUPID!!


Missed it by || this much. I wasn't talking about _the suspect _making a mistake. I was talking about _the handler and the officer who came in from the right. _ I'll take responsibility for not being clear on this. The officers should not have left the cover/concealment of their vehicles and approached the suspect vehicle. I'd guess that, as sometimes happens, they got caught up in the excitement of the chase, let their adrenalin over-ride their good sense, and in their haste to take the suspect into custody, put themselves in danger. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> It was a criminal and conscious decision to commit wrongdoing and that's stupid.


I agree that the suspect did a stupid thing. I'm not cutting him any slack. But when a suspect surrenders, as it's clear that this one does, it's a violation of his rights to use force against him. Even crooks have rights and while you may not like that, if the police violate those rights, the courts may supply the crooks with remedies. Sometimes it's in the form of money. Sometimes LEO's go to jail. Can you say "Stephanie Mohr?" 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Maybe I'm not enough of a politically correct liberal, but I think Lou's thinking is a big part of why our LEOs and military have such a difficult time doing their jobs.


Since you misunderstood my meaning, this has no application to me or this discussion. My thinking is about keeping the handler and the other officers as safe as possible while still taking the suspect into custody. There is no one "right way." But there are lots of wrong ways. This deployment was one of the latter group. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> There's always someone looking over their shoulder telling them why they should have done something different or better or been more gentle with the criminals while the bad guys get a slap on the wrist and get sent on their way to do it again.


That's the world today. This is a swinging pendulum. Long before you were born, LEO's were beating confessions out of suspects. One result was the Miranda decision. The pendulum is still swinging towards suspect's rights right now. It's part of the new "political correctness," where Johnny isn't bad, it's just that his Mommy didn't give him enough hugs. I'm no believer in this, in fact I think it's BS, but it's probably not going to swing back to the LE side anytime soon. 

The fact that there is always someone looking over a LEO's shoulder and judging his actions, is nothing new. It's been that way for decades. It's gotten worse with the proliferation of cell phone cameras and recorders. And so it's best if we examine uses of force, and learn from them, rather than to sweep mistakes under the carpet. That's how new handlers will learn not to repeat those errors. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Maybe if more criminals got bit or Tasered for committing crimes, there would be less repeat offenders.


Perhaps, but if a LEO starts thinking like this, he'll be in jail with the very criminals he arrests. We're not in the punishment business. We're in the apprehension business and the rules that are in place, govern how and when we use force.


----------



## Lou Castle

Doug Zaga said:


> Mike,
> 
> I think we all agree that when a suspect, perp, inmate, pretrial detainee gives up regardless of the crime then NO force can be used....
> 
> The issue I have is we do not see what the suspect is doing nor do we hear what he is saying thus who is Lou or anyone to question the Use of Force!


Doug you've got a good point, but when someone puts both of their hands up in the air when confronted by a LE use of force, that means, to any right thinking person, that he's surrendering. He may be faking, waiting for an opportunity to escape or assault the officer, but at that moment, uses of force must stop ASAP. On the video BOTH of his hands are in the air, above the roof line of the vehicle he's in. For all we know he may be one of those "Shoot me, I don't care if I live" types. But even if he is, it's not appropriate to do so. Nor is it appropriate to leave the dog on him. 



Doug Zaga said:


> I do have a thought though... there was an officer positioned at 11:00 with a Taser would it be reasonable to assume if there was no need for the level of force by a K-9 that the officer would have used the Taser or commanded him out of the vehicle? Or is the Taser and K-9 the same level of force in most departments?


I think that's an excellent question. I don't think that a dog should be put on the use of force spectrum, pyramid, continuum, whatever language is being used, unless an exact description of what he's doing is given. A dog barking is less force than a dog lunging, and both are less force than a dog biting. I'd place the Taser above the barking or lunging but below the biting. In a recent discussion a member said that the Sheriff's in MA all place the dog at the same level as deadly force, but that makes little sense. It means that a dog can only be used in the same circumstances as an officer could fire his gun.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I absolutely agree with that statement and hope it's not been interpreted that I believe the suspect should have been bitten, Tased, shot, etc. even though he gave up. However, from the angle the handler approaches and from the preceding events, I think it's impossible to assume that he knew the suspect gave up and decided to send his dog anyway.


I agree in part. The suspect's hands go up at the very last moment. I've said that it's very possible that no one could stop a dog given that little time for a call off. BUT I don't think that it's possible that the officer could have completely missed the fact that the suspect had his hands up. After all, he's supposed to be looking at the hands for weapons right? And so as soon as possible after the bite occurred, he should have outed his dog. But it doesn't look as if he had the ability to do so. And he should have that ability. 

Had the handler and the other officers stayed back behind the door of their cars, as I've been saying, this question would be academic. The suspect would have surrendered and allowed himself to be taken into custody. He might have tried to run, in which case the use of the dog might be justified. Or he might have fought with the officers. In that case, there were enough of them present, that they could have handled him without the dog's assistance. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Additionally, once he was bitten we can't be sure if the suspect was writhing in pain or if he was fighting and flailing trying to get the dog off of him.


Ariel this is bullsh!t. He's NEITHER fighting NOR flailing. All he does is to put his hand on the dog's muzzle. More than likely he's merely trying to push the dog away from him. He makes no effort to strike either the dog or the officers with either his hands, his feet or any other body part for that matter. If you went into court with such a statement, when the jury could easily watch this video, and see that there's nothing of what you describe on it, you'd lose, big time. The plaintiff's attorney would show it to them over and over and each time he'd ask you to point out where the suspect tried to hit anyone. It would be obvious that you were lying, if you persisted with this statement. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I don't believe someone being bitten by a serious dog could freeze up like decoys do in training while the handler calmly outs his dog,


Me too. That's why PSD's need to be trained to out while the suspects are still moving. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> but I also don't believe we can just assume if the dog was outed or recalled that the suspect would be compliant.


You're right again. And so if the suspect was faking compliance the dog is still be present. If he tried to flee, it would be obvious and the dog could be deployed. If he tried to go for a weapon, the officers might be forced to stop him with their own weapons. But if they were behind the cover/concealment that their cars afford, they'd be far less likely to be injured. 

In any case, if a suspect says, or shows by raising his hands, that he's surrendering, an LEO must honor that and stop his uses of force. He can keep the dog a few feet from the suspect so that if he starts fighting, he can be used, but once he's surrendered, the fight should be over. No extra punches, for punishment, no extra bites for the same reason, or to "reward" the dog are allowed by either the law or by morality. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Once the dog was on him, I think it was reasonable to use the dog until the other officers subdued and cuffed the suspect as they did in the video.


You're very wrong. There are a few circumstances where it's appropriate for a dog to be left on a bite until the suspect is handcuffed. But they all have such things involved as, the handler is alone in a dangerous situation, the suspect is still actively trying to escape or attack officers and the danger of escape or injury to officer is very real. None of these situations are present here. In fact the opposite is the case. The suspect is not resisting, he's not trying to hit or kick either the dog or the officers. He's not going for a weapon and there are 40-50 officers in the immediate area. 

The dog should have been outed within seconds. But it looks as if this handler was incapable of doing it. The fight as shown, lasts about 25 seconds and there's a lot more time spent on the bite, that's not shown. The suspect was completely surrounded by armed officers and the dog could have been outed at anytime and been contained by them with no risk to anyone.


----------



## Lou Castle

Barry Connell said:


> Ariel, YEP, we have no idea if "outing" was even taking place at all.


Barry, can you supply some reason that this handler was flanking his dog EXCEPT in an effort to out him? 



Barry Connell said:


> A question I pose is this.....WHY do we continually ask dogs to out statically at the end of a leash or off leash during actual combat.


I don't think it's a good idea to work a dog on a leash so I have no answer for this part of your question. But it's done off leash because it gets the dog off the suspect as quickly as possible, once he's surrendered, and it allows the handler and the arrest team to stay behind cover/concealment while it's done. It's called tactics. Exposing oneself, as these officers do, means that they're at far greater risk, than if they'd stayed behind their doors. 



Barry Connell said:


> Between the suspects continued actions, the swarm of other cops, sirens wailing....why do we even take the chance?!?!?!


What do the _"sirens wailing"_ have to do with outing a dog? When it's done properly, everyone concerned, including the suspect, is safer. Officers should be trained that they should NOT _"swarm"_ because it's not safe to do so. They're safer behind the doors of their cars or other forms of cover/concealment. 



Barry Connell said:


> The handler should go up, get control, order the out and then back away into a distant standby position (in my OWN opinion only)


Every handler should have that method of outing in his bag of tricks. BUT he should ALSO be able to out the dog verbally from a distance. Both situations may be useful, it depends on the circumstances. But if he can't do the latter, he has no choice and MUST expose himself to the suspect.


----------



## Lou Castle

Chris Keister said:


> Gonna just add two quick things......
> 
> 1) we were not there and video does not show everything you can't ( or shouldn't ) try to make judgement on "objective reasonableness". Video does not tell the whole story.


That's very true. Chris can you give us some reason that the handler is flanking his dog other than to get him to out? 



Chris Keister said:


> 2) as much as I hate to say it I will agree with Lou on one thing. We have and train a "felony car stop" for a reason. Much safer if we call the suspect out of the car. Suspect refuses to come out or runs then the bite is much easier to justify under Graham v Connor.


I don't care who has made a statement in a discussion, if it's correct, it's correct. I never find myself _"hat[ing] to say"_ that I agree with someone. But glad you agree.


----------



## Lou Castle

Barry Connell said:


> Lou is correct....that kid had both hands in the air for the last couple minutes of the chase....he was CLEARLY surrendering (at XX miles per hour)
> 
> We could all see this very well from the helicopter....


Odd that you can see it while he's moving _"at XX miles per hour,"_ but that it's completely invisible to you when it counts, when he's surrendering at the end of the pursuit.


----------



## Lou Castle

Timothy Stacy said:


> Obviously not using your "foolproof" method that is flawless in the heat of the moment!


Always a joy when someone tries to put words into my mouth. Timothy please show us someplace that I've said that my method is _"flawless in the heat of the moment."_


----------



## Lou Castle

Timothy Stacy said:


> Correct, that is what you do when Lou's method completely fails!


Quite wrong. When it fails, as any method can, then you lift the dog off the bite in what's called a "tactical lift." But it rarely fails.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Timothy,
> 
> I thought the "protocols" were 100% reliable and never failed?


I'll correct your bad information as I did with Timothy. I've never had my protocol fail to give a handler who's having an outing issue, a verbal out. That hardly means that it will work under all circumstances, only that I've never failed to give them the "first step in the process," the hardest step in getting a verbal out. But it's typical of some to try to twist my words to their own end.


----------



## Lou Castle

Timothy Stacy said:


> Some of it is confidential Thomas!
> All I can tell you is that it requires many decoys in a suit but it has street creds of 100% effiency
> 
> Cause nobody uses it LMAO


Actually you're wrong. At least one member of this forum has used it and has discussed doing so elsewhere. And there are many using it who are not here.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Thanks for the splaination Tim ;-)
> The protocol has worked every time its been used which has been never! LMAO


More bullsh!t. It's in use by quite a few handlers.


----------



## Bob Scott

If I recall (being a civilian) a felony stop requires the suspect to remain in the car until told to do otherwise. "If" that's the case then this guy getting out on his own changes the rules. Correct?
LEO comments?


----------



## Joby Becker

Bob Scott said:


> If I recall (being a civilian) a felony stop requires the suspect to remain in the car until told to do otherwise. "If" that's the case then this guy getting out on his own changes the rules. Correct?
> LEO comments?


that was my thought. guy popped door open, wiggled his hands..

either way it goes for what everyone wants to argue about, shoulda never opened that door in my mind....


----------



## Lou Castle

Bob Scott said:


> If I recall (being a civilian) a felony stop requires the suspect to remain in the car until told to do otherwise. "If" that's the case then this guy getting out on his own changes the rules. Correct?
> LEO comments?


You can tell a suspect to _"remain in the car"_ but sometimes they don't. Here, no attempt was made to do a "felony stop." 

A felony stop usually begins with, as you say, a command for all the occupants to stay in the car. But if they don't, and one of them steps out, or as in this situation, opens the door, it's not permissible to bite him just for this refusal. It may be that he didn't hear the commands, or that he's just dumb. Having him stay in the car allows for other officers to get themselves into position and lets the situation calm down for a moment. But you don't want to wait for too long as it gives the suspect(s) time to make plans. 

If he does step out, whether it's because he's been ordered to do so, or he's done it by himself, then verbal commands are given by one of the officers. It's best if only one of them gives these commands. He and the other officers, stay in positions of advantage, behind the door of their cars or behind some other available cover/concealment that gives them a vantage point. 

What the officers do at this point varies a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally the suspect is ordered to raise his hands and to turn around so that his shirt is pulled up to reveal his waistband, a common hiding place for guns. In this case, the suspect isn't wearing a shirt but having him have his hands up, means a longer reach for a gun, if he has one. 

Then he's told (usually) to walk backwards towards the officers. In some areas they'll move him away from the suspect vehicle and will then have him prone out on the ground in front of the police cars. At some point, officers will move forward to make sure that the car is empty, and they will then handcuff and check the suspect for weapons. In some areas they'll walk him all the way back to behind the doors of the police units, and will then take him into custody. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. 

If at any time, the suspect decides to run or refuses to comply with these commands, it might be appropriate to send the dog for a bite. Things are done a bit differently if there are multiple suspects in the car.


----------



## Barry Connell

Lou Castle said:


> Odd that you can see it while he's moving _"at XX miles per hour,"_ but that it's completely invisible to you when it counts, when he's surrendering at the end of the pursuit.


 
OK, I'm a complete f-ing idiot for being drug into this since you like to pull people down with your vast smarter than thou attitude and I have seen it countless times. 

Aside from that, you're kinda pissin me off by inferring that ANYTHING was invisible to me at all!!!! I never freakin addressed the suspect's hands after the stop AT ALL ya doofus!!! I only poked fun at your armchair quarterbackin of a cop who was a few feet from the action and you were much further away in your helicopter.

You talk shit about what lawyers do in court.....hell, you spoonfeed them with your presumptive, all knowing, perfect eyesight, after the fact, mighty talk on a public forum.

I regret my involvement completely.....I am in Louisville right now in school, so I will seek out this wayward young man and chastise him appropriately fro you.

....and you are correct, Mr. Castle...sirens wailing have NO IMPACT AT ALL ON such scenes....

Carry on....(without me)


----------



## rick smith

is it possible to focus the discussion on the K9 handling without discussing all the other tactics involved ?
that's all i really care about even tho the rest may apply...somewhat


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Lou,

I am beginning to see that aside from our views on training methods and e-collar usage, our opinions also vary distinctly about the best employment of police dogs. You keep advocating outing and recalling the dog as quickly as possible after the bite and in one of your recent posts, you state that the dog should not be allowed to bite while other officers are attempting to subdue the suspect. 

I am curious, exactly what do you feel is achieved by sending the dog in the quickly bite and them be recalled? If the suspect is that non-compliant or combative, do you feel a quick bite would do anything more than further anger the suspect? This doesn't make sense to me especially because you also seem to advocate re-sending the dog as many times as necessary. Wouldn't multiple bites on one suspect be worse than one bite that's longer in duration but allows the dog to be used more effectively the first time? 

Perhaps you can give some more detailed insight into what you believe is the proper employment and integration of a police dog. I really am curious as I am beginning to see some major differences.


----------



## rick smith

a discussion about the proper use and deployment of a PSD could involve a lot of writing  

- how about the use/deployment of the K9 in the clips that were just posted ?

- i imagine that will stir up enuff differing opinions


----------



## Chris Keister

Dog should stay on the suspect until you have them in handcuffs if possible then hard out so other officers don't get dog bit.


----------



## Jan Wensink

Timothy Stacy said:


> Obviously not using your "foolproof" method that is flawless in the heat of the moment!:roll:
> Last resort method possibly? Here it is used again at 34 seconds!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQIbidj64Kk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> You are failing the public by not getting the word out about your outing article


 I think this is the same bite shot from another angle.


----------



## Jan Wensink

Maybe the K9-officer is a member here and read about "shredding".


----------



## Lou Castle

Barry Connell said:


> OK, I'm a complete f-ing idiot for being drug into this since you like to pull people down with your vast smarter than thou attitude and I have seen it countless times.


I don't think that I have a _"smarter than thou attitude."_ I’m hardly smarter than everyone here. I'm just an average guy. As I've said many times, I just know a few things. 



Barry Connell said:


> Aside from that, you're kinda pissin me off by inferring that ANYTHING was invisible to me at all!!!! I never freakin addressed the suspect's hands after the stop AT ALL ya doofus!!! I only poked fun at your armchair quarterbackin of a cop who was a few feet from the action and you were much further away in your helicopter.


Sorry to piss you off Barry. Reasonable people can disagree with losing their tempers. I get that you were poking fun at me. You missed that I was poking fun back. Perhaps I shoulda put in an lol? 



Barry Connell said:


> You talk shit about what lawyers do in court.....


It's not _"talk[ing] shit"_ Barry. LA was a hotbed of K−9 lawsuits in the 80's and the 90's. There were many lawyers who saw dollar signs when K−9's made a comeback in the area back then. Most of them were filed against LAPD and LASD but I had three of them myself. Lawyers thought they could easily win them, given the general liberal attitude that is prevalent here. And if they lost they could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the most liberal appellate court in the country. (And, I might add, the most often reversed by the Supreme Court). But it's frightfully expensive to take a case to the Supremes and so most of the time the 9th has the final word. I sat in on many cases against other departments and spoke with many attorneys who were defending LE against them, so that I could teach my guys the best way to defend themselves against such lawsuits. So rather than _"talk[ing] shit,"_ I'm talking from personal experience. 

I was friends with several of the attorneys who defended us against many of these lawsuits and still keep in contact with them. I regularly attend classes that are put on by them and keep abreast of what's going on in the law regarding K−9's. Judges have the ability to shut down K−9's if they think we're doing it wrong, so keeping up with this stuff is important. 



Barry Connell said:


> hell, you spoonfeed them with your presumptive, all knowing, perfect eyesight, after the fact, mighty talk on a public forum.


Barry it's silly to think that I'm giving information to anyone that doesn’t already have it. Thinking that there's some lawyer sitting at home reading this who suddenly comes to the realization "Hey, I can sue a police department for excessive force and get me some money" is silly. 



Barry Connell said:


> I regret my involvement completely.....I am in Louisville right now in school, so I will seek out this wayward young man and chastise him appropriately fro you.


Perhaps instead you can ask him why he left the relative safety of his police car, endangering himself, the suspect and other officers at the scene, when he could have stayed back and done a felony stop? His assertion that foot chases happen often at the end of car chases is true, but he needlessly put everyone at risk, especially given the state of his training. Perhaps you can encourage him to join the forum and tell us what happened first-hand? 



Barry Connell said:


> ....and you are correct, Mr. Castle...sirens wailing have NO IMPACT AT ALL ON such scenes....


I'm sure that they do. I know that one of my pet peeves is that I can't hear what's going on well when officers leave their sirens on at the end of a pursuit. But it should have no effect on a handler's ability to out his dog, he's just a few feet away and the dog should have been worked on this many times before he hits the street, so it's not a problem.


----------



## Lou Castle

rick smith said:


> is it possible to focus the discussion on the K9 handling without discussing all the other tactics involved ?
> that's all i really care about even tho the rest may apply...somewhat


Rick, it probably is possible but some have asked about the tactics and I had the time so I responded. I think that some knowledge of the tactics is necessary to completely understand the situation.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Lou,
> 
> I am beginning to see that aside from our views on training methods and e-collar usage, our opinions also vary distinctly about the best employment of police dogs.


Ariel I've taught K−9 tactics at some of the top schools in the country. I know that there are many right ways to handle a deployment and many wrong ways. I've disagreed and argued with other instructors about how a given deployment was handled many times, but one thing comes across all the times. The best use of the K−9 is the one that keep the handlers and the other officers the safest. I realize that there are many ways that this can be accomplished. But routinely leaving cover/concealment is what gets more handlers hurt than any other single mistake. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> You keep advocating outing and recalling the dog as quickly as possible after the bite and in one of your recent posts, you state that the dog should not be allowed to bite while other officers are attempting to subdue the suspect.


Can you remind me where I said that please? I don't recall saying it and the context of such a statement is important. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I am curious, exactly what do you feel is achieved by sending the dog in the quickly bite and them be recalled? If the suspect is that non-compliant or combative, do you feel a quick bite would do anything more than further anger the suspect? This doesn't make sense to me especially because you also seem to advocate re-sending the dog as many times as necessary. Wouldn't multiple bites on one suspect be worse than one bite that's longer in duration but allows the dog to be used more effectively the first time?


I'm sorry Ariel, I don't know what you're referring to. It's not that I advocate a _"quick bite and then a recall."_ It's that I advocate what the law demands, that suspect be taken into custody with the minimum amount of force. Besides the law, I think that morally, it's the right thing to do. If the suspect surrenders after a bite has occurred, and the handler has the protection of other officers around, then he should out the dog as quickly as possible, to minimize the injury to the suspect. Later on, during the lawsuits that often occur, he's in a much better light. Dogs are great at locating suspect but not so good at the apprehension side of it. The law and morality requires that if a suspect surrenders, that we use the minimum amount of force on him. Most of the time, that means stopping the fight, whether it's a dog bite or hands-on. Just as you can't keep punching someone because "he deserves it" or you're pissed off," you can't allow the dog to keep biting once he's given up. If, as in the situation under discussion, there's little to no chance of him escaping, retrieving a weapon or injuring someone, there's no reason to leave the dog on the bite while he's handcuffed. There are a few situations where it's OK to leave the dog on, they've been mentioned, but they're relatively rare. If the suspect decides that he wants to fight some more, he can. He'll get punched, batoned, pepper sprayed, or dog bit again. That fact will go into the report and I'm happy to let the courts decide. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Perhaps you can give some more detailed insight into what you believe is the proper employment and integration of a police dog. I really am curious as I am beginning to see some major differences.


I think I just answered you, at least, in part. Generally police K−9's are best used to search for hiding suspects who have committed felonies or armed misdemeanors. If, when found, those people can be taken into custody without injury, that's best for all concerned. 

K−9's are sometimes good for convincing folks who are thinking about fighting us that it's not a good way to go. Often just a bark or two and they think better of the idea. But sometimes they have no effect. Occasionally the dog may be called on to do combat in such situations and usually they're very good at it. Sometimes suspects are "not impressed" and then the dog can be a hindrance. Other officers who may be ready to jump in, to help, are sometimes not in a rush to do so, if a K−9 is involved. Particularly if that dog has a reputation to for biting cops. 

Some departments use them to good effect in crowd control situations, but some agencies avoid this. 

On some departments K−9 are used only for their search function. On smaller departments K−9 handlers are usually pressed into service doing the same sort of thing as every other patrol officer, taking crime reports, investigating potential criminal activity, handling calls, etc. 

Not sure if that's the info you're looking for. If it's not, please ask about the specifics. 

Generally, uses of force are to be avoided, if possible. Sometimes they're not. But we don't make the decision as to whether or not they're used. The suspects do that. If they put up their hands and allow themselves to be taken into custody, that's best for all concerned. If they want to shoot it out, we'll deal with that too. But we should not be the ones who initiate the force. Instead we must respond to what they do. It puts us on the bad side of the curve but that's the nature of the job.


----------



## Lou Castle

Chris Keister said:


> Dog should stay on the suspect until you have them in handcuffs if possible then hard out so other officers don't get dog bit.


Wow Chris! You might want to review Graham v. Connor, Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, Edwards v. Shanley, Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido and Chew v. Gates. The law is pretty clear on this. Once the suspect is no longer a threat, uses of force, and that includes a dog continuing to bite someone, must stop. You're probably going to argue that until the suspect is handcuffed he's a threat. I understand that thought process, but you're going to be hard pressed to find an appellate court who agrees with you in every situation. You'd better be able to detail exactly why THIS suspect was still such a threat that you found it necessary to leave your dog on him. The general statement, that a suspect is dangerous until he's cuffed, is not going to fly. It may work at the local level because jurors don't like crooks and many of them feel that it's a "good thing" that they got bit by the dog. But appellate courts don't share that opinion.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jan Wensink said:


> Maybe the K9-officer is a member here and read about "shredding".


ROFL. Good one Jan.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*LAPD K9 Wars*

There seems to be a tendency to rewrite what actually happened in LA
Here are some statistics
LAPD Lawsuit Liability FACTS:

Research the Christopher Commission investigation.

Amounts paid out by LAPD in lawsuit liability litigation:

1980 - $891,000.00
1990 - $9.1 million
1991 - $14.7 million 
The claim that they never lost a case is a little misleading. They didn't lose because most were settled out of court.
I'm not sure if this is still the case? Back in the early 90's

"The Police Commission subsequently ruled that if LAPD wanted to continue to use K9s, the following directives must be applied immediately and unconditionally:

ALL K9s must wear a remote controlled electric shock collar at ALL times while on duty, ensuring the dogs could be removed from biting a suspect within seconds, not minutes. (This may not be the case now, however, it was the ruling in the 1990s.)

A SUPERVISOR must be called to the scene to determine if the K9 should be deployed. This was no longer left to the discretion of the officer. Thus, it became the SUPERVISOR'S responsibility if the K9 was deployed improperly, without reasonable cause for use of force.

The use of K9s was completely prohibited regarding car theft suspects.

MILLIONS of dollars were paid in out-of-court settlements to the victims of LAPD's dog bites. Many of these settlements were in the amounts of $50,000.00 to $200,000.00. Logically, as a result, LAPD saved many more millions of dollars by not taking the risk of going to court trial in these lawsuits."

It's real easy to criticize someone on a video for not having a verbal
out or using a tactical lift off IN THE HEAT OF A REAL INCIDENT.
If your only practical experience was based on a department that
utilized e-collars to blast ALL your K9's off the bite.


----------



## Howard Knauf

I'm pro LEO as anyone can get. I'm that way because it's my profession and expected of me. What's also expected is that I act in a professional manner and abide by all all laws and uphold the constitution. I expect other cops to act in the same manner. When one cop does something bad or suspect it reflects poorly on all cops. Just read any cop related thread on this board. That said, here is my feeling on this particular incident......

I know what its like to be in that exact scenario. I know what it's like to be in a long pursuit of a serious criminal that ends much like in the video. I know how easy it is to get into a mob mentality or lose your common sense and tactics when the pucker factor is high. I know what it's like to be in "prey drive" with lots of adrenaline flowing. I know whats its like to want to catch that POS scumbag. I remember being a rookie cop and doing stupid things. But I also matured in my work through experience, training and common sense.

There is a reason why most departments require a K9 handler candidate to have a few years on the road before going to a specialty unit. Those prospective officers need to mature on the street first. They need to know how o apply the law within seconds of witnessing an offense.They need to have a cool head. They need to be fair and not bullies with a sadistic mentality. K9 is high liability and a seasoned officer reduces that liability. Being new in K9 is like starting police work all over again from day one. Nobody wants to give a rookie patrol officer a dog when that officer hasn't proficiently learned the basics. It's a recipe for disaster.

In the video the handler can justify the initial dog bite due to the very fast chain of events. There is case law addressing such incidents. How did the dog get out? I don't know. The car he was in appeared to be an unmarked. I don't know if it had a kennel in it or not. That's another issue altogether if it goes to civil court.

At the end of the day there is no reason for that dog not to have been outed immediately when the handler tried to get him to release. The victim/perp doesn't care how the dog was trained. The jury doesn't care how the dog was trained. All both know is that the dog is supposed to out on command. As a professional you train your dog to out on a moving or fighting subject, period. Because the second you try to out the dog physically or verbally, any time thereafter is a violation or rights and excessive force. The lawyers will tell the jury that the handler knew the right time, attempted to do the right thing, but non compliance from the dog or immediate intervention of the handler constitutes excessive force.

Train the damn dog like it needs to be trained, otherwise pay the consequences. I have outed my dogs verbally numerous times from active and/or fighting suspects in real life street apprehensions just as intense as the one in the video. I did my part in my training. As a professional I expect the same from every handler. Not too much to ask since it's the law! My dogs could certify every day of the week. I hate seeing handlers panic every year to get through the cert. It pisses me off because I know the handler didn't do his job all year long. It also pisses me off because other cops and citizens rely on a piss poor trained dog to save their life.

Those are my feelings and they'll never change.


----------



## rick smith

Howard
I tip my hat to you
...not because you agree with what i might have been thinking but because of your position as a member of the law enforcement community, which makes it much harder to put in writing

it still pisses me off that LE don't get clips posted on you tube and interviews by the media for all the great work they do, especially with K9's.....](*,)](*,)

in all my navy time the guys I was the hardest on were my own divers, and we ALL definitely had chips on our shoulders and considered ourselves professionals, but that job was probably a hundred times easier than being a cop these days.....


----------



## Howard Knauf

Rick,

I also know what its like to be sued in federal court for rights violations and excessive force. I am being sued right now! Don't everyone whose not a cop think it doesn't happen. You can't think of just getting the bad guy. You HAVE to think about sitting in court with the realization that you can lose EVERYTHING to a scumbag. I mean everything...job, house, retirement, vehicles, vacation home...everything you worked your ass off for, and the citizens you did it for.

I'm confident in my case. We did nothing wrong. We followed the rules to the letter. The combination of the biggest POS scumbag lawyer and some dash cam video that looks bad has me stressed to the hilt because I don't want to be homeless and broke. I'm too damn old to recover!

I shoulda been a fukkin fireman.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> I shoulda been a fukkin fireman.


Howard,

Is that different from a regular fireman? ;-)


----------



## Brett Bowen

God help me but I agree with Lou on the point of tactics regardless if k9 is there or not. I'm also not throwing stones at the guy, I had a goof up recently that afterwards I thought "well that was f***in stupid" Similar situation, rushed up on a guy when there was no need to, if he ran back to his house, so what? SWAT was on their way to do the warrant. It's a good thing I work with great people that helped slow things down.

Anyway, hang back, bring the guy out to you, time is on our side and distance = time. The more distance you have the more time you have to make a decision. If he refuses to come out you have some time to put a team together and figure out who's going to cover, who's going hands on, and who's going to break the window. Maybe we break the window with a bean bag round and send the dog in, all I'm saying is there is nothing but time. But once he's stopped you have nothing but time.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

This should be sticky noted on the board for all the armchair analysts to read before venturing their opinion.

The job started hard enough became pretty tough now its getting F'ing impossible.

People forget cops are just people to.

I wouldn't last 2 minutes in yr job Howard, hope yr dept is supporting you adequately.

Good luck man.





Howard Knauf said:


> Rick,
> 
> I also know what its like to be sued in federal court for rights violations and excessive force. I am being sued right now! Don't everyone whose not a cop think it doesn't happen. You can't think of just getting the bad guy. You HAVE to think about sitting in court with the realization that you can lose EVERYTHING to a scumbag. I mean everything...job, house, retirement, vehicles, vacation home...everything you worked your ass off for, and the citizens you did it for.
> 
> I'm confident in my case. We did nothing wrong. We followed the rules to the letter. The combination of the biggest POS scumbag lawyer and some dash cam video that looks bad has me stressed to the hilt because I don't want to be homeless and broke. I'm too damn old to recover!
> 
> I shoulda been a fukkin fireman.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Lou Castle said:


> Ariel I've taught K−9 tactics at some of the top schools in the country. I know that there are many right ways to handle a deployment and many wrong ways. I've disagreed and argued with other instructors about how a given deployment was handled many times, but one thing comes across all the times. The best use of the K−9 is the one that keep the handlers and the other officers the safest. I realize that there are many ways that this can be accomplished. But routinely leaving cover/concealment is what gets more handlers hurt than any other single mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you remind me where I said that please? I don't recall saying it and the context of such a statement is important.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Ariel, I don't know what you're referring to. It's not that I advocate a _"quick bite and then a recall."_ It's that I advocate what the law demands, that suspect be taken into custody with the minimum amount of force. Besides the law, I think that morally, it's the right thing to do. If the suspect surrenders after a bite has occurred, and the handler has the protection of other officers around, then he should out the dog as quickly as possible, to minimize the injury to the suspect. Later on, during the lawsuits that often occur, he's in a much better light. Dogs are great at locating suspect but not so good at the apprehension side of it. The law and morality requires that if a suspect surrenders, that we use the minimum amount of force on him. Most of the time, that means stopping the fight, whether it's a dog bite or hands-on. Just as you can't keep punching someone because "he deserves it" or you're pissed off," you can't allow the dog to keep biting once he's given up. If, as in the situation under discussion, there's little to no chance of him escaping, retrieving a weapon or injuring someone, there's no reason to leave the dog on the bite while he's handcuffed. There are a few situations where it's OK to leave the dog on, they've been mentioned, but they're relatively rare. If the suspect decides that he wants to fight some more, he can. He'll get punched, batoned, pepper sprayed, or dog bit again. That fact will go into the report and I'm happy to let the courts decide.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I just answered you, at least, in part. Generally police K−9's are best used to search for hiding suspects who have committed felonies or armed misdemeanors. If, when found, those people can be taken into custody without injury, that's best for all concerned.
> 
> K−9's are sometimes good for convincing folks who are thinking about fighting us that it's not a good way to go. Often just a bark or two and they think better of the idea. But sometimes they have no effect. Occasionally the dog may be called on to do combat in such situations and usually they're very good at it. Sometimes suspects are "not impressed" and then the dog can be a hindrance. Other officers who may be ready to jump in, to help, are sometimes not in a rush to do so, if a K−9 is involved. Particularly if that dog has a reputation to for biting cops.
> 
> Some departments use them to good effect in crowd control situations, but some agencies avoid this.
> 
> On some departments K−9 are used only for their search function. On smaller departments K−9 handlers are usually pressed into service doing the same sort of thing as every other patrol officer, taking crime reports, investigating potential criminal activity, handling calls, etc.
> 
> Not sure if that's the info you're looking for. If it's not, please ask about the specifics.
> 
> Generally, uses of force are to be avoided, if possible. Sometimes they're not. But we don't make the decision as to whether or not they're used. The suspects do that. If they put up their hands and allow themselves to be taken into custody, that's best for all concerned. If they want to shoot it out, we'll deal with that too. But we should not be the ones who initiate the force. Instead we must respond to what they do. It puts us on the bad side of the curve but that's the nature of the job.


I realize that asking for your opinion on how a dog should be properly deployed might be quite extensive if you tried to describe every possible deployment scenario. Can you give a detailed account of the tactical procedures you would recommend for deploying a canine during a felony vehicle stop? I am not specifically referring to the scenario in the video as it's impossible to determine if and when the handler noticed the suspect had surrendered and also how capable he was of outing his dog. So, let's assume in the hypothetical scenario that the suspect is non-compliant and refuses to surrender. Also, would you deploy the dog differently if there was only one suspect vs. multiple suspects in the vehicle? If yes, how?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Peter Cavallaro said:


> I wouldn't last 2 minutes in yr job Howard, hope yr dept is supporting you adequately.
> 
> Good luck man.


 Only because we did nothing wrong. Had we been blatant in a violation we very may well have been terminated and left to fend for ourselves. That's the reality folks.

Damn hose draggers got it made. Everyone loves em.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> There seems to be a tendency to rewrite what actually happened in LA


I agree that there is this tendency, especially from someone who was not there and has a chip on his shoulder. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Here are some statistics
> LAPD Lawsuit Liability FACTS:
> Research the Christopher Commission investigation.
> Amounts paid out by LAPD in lawsuit liability litigation:
> 
> 1980 - $891,000.00
> 1990 - $9.1 million
> 1991 - $14.7 million


Thanks for the numbers Thomas. They come from a website put up by a psychotic cyber stalker and are both unverified and unverifiable. If you think that you can support them with a credible source, please do so. 

But for now ... I notice that your heading is _"Amounts paid out by LAPD in lawsuit liability litigation."_ I also notice that it says nothing about how much of those pay outs was due to K−9 cases! Can you give us that breakdown please? Otherwise your numbers mean nothing as far as this discussion. It includes money paid out in traffic accidents, damages to private property during the service of search warrants, slip and falls, shootings, wrongful deaths, uses of excessive force, discrimination, sexual harassment awards, inappropriate firings and many more categories. K−9 is a relatively small part of these payouts. 

For example, for the years 1990 - 1999, LAPD paid out about $66.3 million. "Excessive force," the area in which K−9 liability would be paid, (but not necessarily K−9 payouts) was only $8.3 million, only about 12.5% of the payoffs. Also included was $11.1 million for "Assault and Battery, $9.3 million for "Killings" and a whopping $27.1 million for "Shootings," by far the largest payout at 41%! (From this source, http://www.womenandpolicing.org/PDF/2002_Excessive_Force.pdf). 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The claim that they never lost a case is a little misleading.


What's misleading is your presentation of the stats without a breakdown by category. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> They didn't lose because most were settled out of court.


If you have some proof of this, please supply it. Otherwise it's just that, opinion based on an assumption. And the opinion is wrong. In truth, the city of LA took a very hard stance on K−9 settlements and there were very few of them. Both LAPD and LASD had one large settlement of a class action lawsuit. But the circumstances are very intricate, convoluted and political. I'll go into it if someone wants but it's very off topic. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Back in the early 90's "The Police Commission subsequently ruled that if LAPD wanted to continue to use K9s, the following directives must be applied immediately and unconditionally:


These proclamations came down in 1991 or 1992. They had nothing to do with the Christopher Commission. 

Here's the history of how this came about. LAPD had videotaped an actual search for a GTA (Grand Theft Auto) suspect. (Here's more reason why I never videotape my work with LE). The team came across a sofa in the yard of a home and the dog started sniffing excitedly at one end of it. Suddenly a foot popped out and kicked the dog in the face. He bit the ankle that was attached. The handler flipped the sofa over to reveal the suspect. He was subsequently arrested. That tape became part of a police recruiting film that was circulated in Japan. Someone got a copy of the film and sent it to an attorney that had been suing LAPD for K−9 bites for quite some time, and he gave it to the local TV new stations, who aired it. Few people had ever seen a K−9 bite at that time in history and it quickly became a sensation. If you've ever seen one, they ain't pretty, no use of force is, but a K−9 bite is especially ugly to those with tender sensibilities. People were outraged yet there was nothing untoward, but it was real, not an action movie and so the public outcry rose up. 

As a result the LA Police Commission was considering putting a moratorium on the use of the departments K−9's. Donn was called upon by the Chief of Police to convince them that they should not stop the use of the K−9's. When he appeared in their chambers he called in the K−9 handlers who were in the field at the time, no cherry picking here. With the other Commissioners looking on, Donn took the head of the commission, Stanley Scheinbaum out into a field and left him there. No equipment. Then he had a handler send his dog for a barking exercise. The dog was picture perfect. Mr. Scheinbaum was pretty clear on his feelings about what he'd just seen. Later in the Commission Chambers he said, "Our dogs are magnificent!" They decided against the moratorium but they decided to induct into official city policy several of the unofficial policies that Yarnall had instituted in the K−9 unit. You mention some of them here. This had nothing to do with the Christopher Commission which came about as a result of the Rodney King incident. But while Christopher was in town, he added many of the police commission's policies into his report. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> ALL K9s must wear a remote controlled electric shock collar at ALL times while on duty, ensuring the dogs could be removed from biting a suspect within seconds, not minutes. (This may not be the case now, however, it was the ruling in the 1990s.)


Donn had been using the Ecollar as part of his training almost from the start, TEN YEARS before the Police Commission demo. In fact they didn't even know that such a device existed until they started their inquiry and Donn told them that he had been using them for years. Donn was an innovator in applying the tool to LE K−9's and still is. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> A SUPERVISOR must be called to the scene to determine if the K9 should be deployed. This was no longer left to the discretion of the officer. Thus, it became the SUPERVISOR'S responsibility if the K9 was deployed improperly, without reasonable cause for use of force.


A little more history is necessary to understand this one. Donn had been the head trainer of the K−9's for many years and then he got promoted to Sgt. On LAPD when you get promoted it's policy that you go to another Division so that you're not supervising guys you were drinking buddies with yesterday. And so he had to leave Metro Division, where the K−9's operate from, and move to 77th Division. He was assigned there for a year, the minimum per LAPD policy at that time. While he was gone, the trainers who had taken his place switched the mode of deployment from the find-and-bark, that Yarnall trained, to find-and-bite. Their bite ratio had increased and their find ratio had dropped. Officers on perimeters were getting bit at unacceptably high rates and the bad bites were occurring too often. The Chief, seeing that there were issues, asked Donn to go back to Metro and fix them. He did. 

The call load jumped as the patrol officers began to see that once again, the program was a success. It got so high that it became a matter of managing resources. Remember that when they started there were two dogs for about 470 square miles and a population of about three million. The most dogs they ever had was 18, so they were spread pretty thin. Remember that with days off and vacation, training, etc. that means that there are only (at the peak) 4-5 K−9's working at any given time. 

There's a natural tendency to want to do a search for a patrol officer who calls you to the scene. Some of the handlers in questionable circs didn't want to turn down the officer's requests for service. And so, to avoid the pressure on them, Donn turned the responsibility for making the determination as to whether or not a search should be done, over to Sgts. From the standpoint of defending against potential lawsuits this is a good idea. Many departments now do this as a matter of course. This policy was already in place and it was adopted by the Police Commission. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The use of K9s was completely prohibited regarding car theft suspects.


And ditto, again. The incident that started this off was a GTA and the DA filed it as a misdemeanor. In this part of the US there are so many car thefts that even when one is caught, they're usually filed as misdemeanors. It's on the books as a felony, but due to a quirk in the law, they're almost never filed that way. The law in CA requires that in order to file the felony charge of "grand theft, auto" that there must be a showing that the suspect intended to _permanently deprive _the owner of his property. If the car is a "rolling stolen" that's all but impossible to show. In those cases only the misdemeanor charge of "joyriding" applies. The felony section is applied when suspects are caught stripping a car or parting it out. Donn had decided long before there was law on this, that the K−9's should not be used on misdemeanants. Since the DA's were only filing these cases as misdemeanors the decision was made not to use K−9's to search for them. Again, this was policy in the unit long before the Police Commission adopted it. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> MILLIONS of dollars were paid in out-of-court settlements to the victims of LAPD's dog bites. Many of these settlements were in the amounts of $50,000.00 to $200,000.00. Logically, as a result, LAPD saved many more millions of dollars by not taking the risk of going to court trial in these lawsuits."


Sorry Thomas but you're quite wrong. Since you disagree, please show us a credible source for such a statement. 

The fact of life is that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight a lawsuit. That means that paying someone $50,000, or even as much as $200,000 to "go away" happens sometimes. I hate it but it's the fiscally responsible thing to do. This is a fact of life for everyone with deep pockets. Pretending that it's limited to the City of LA or that there's something untoward in the practice, is just another of your attempts to mislead. And the fact is that the City of LA settled very few of these cases. I've shown the real stats for this above. They pay out much more in other areas of liability than K−9. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> It's real easy to criticize someone on a video for not having a verbal out or using a tactical lift off IN THE HEAT OF A REAL INCIDENT. If your only practical experience was based on a department that utilized e-collars to blast ALL your K9's off the bite.


Misleading on several points. First, I never worked for the City of LA. So your criticism is misplaced and this probably is done deliberately, in some kind of "guilt by association" tactic. Second, Donn's use of the Ecollar is anything but "blasting." He pioneered the use of low level stim for police dogs. Third, you're wrong, it's not easy to criticize a LE deployment, in fact it's quite difficult. But it's necessary to do it, so that others do not repeat the mistakes that were made, and to show why having control is essential. Far better for a handler to learn from the experience of others than to make what may be costly, even life threatening decisions, on his own. 

Just a few posts back someone wrote, _"Please ignore anything Mr Castle happens to post. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away."_ 

Back then I replied _"Wondering if you're capable of following your own advice?"_ I guess we have the answer. LOL


----------



## mike finn

Howard Knauf said:


> Only because we did nothing wrong. Had we been blatant in a violation we very may well have been terminated and left to fend for ourselves. That's the reality folks.
> 
> Damn hose draggers got it made. Everyone loves em.


As some one who has seen it from both sides, I have to agree. I have been in law enforcment and am now a paid firefighter. Firefighters are definatley more appreciated than cops. It is a shame, because a good cop is worth their weight in gold. People are glad to see us comming. No one wants to see a cop till they need him.Has any one noticed how many ex cops there are who did not make it to retirement for one reason or another? A lot of good guys dont make it. Good luck Howard, I really hope it works out for you.


----------



## Lou Castle

Howard Knauf said:


> I know what its like to be in that exact scenario. I know what it's like to be in a long pursuit of a serious criminal that ends much like in the video. I know how easy it is to get into a mob mentality or lose your common sense and tactics when the pucker factor is high. I know what it's like to be in "prey drive" with lots of adrenaline flowing. I know whats its like to want to catch that POS scumbag. I remember being a rookie cop and doing stupid things. But I also matured in my work through experience, training and common sense.
> 
> ... Train the damn dog like it needs to be trained, otherwise pay the consequences. I have outed my dogs verbally numerous times from active and/or fighting suspects in real life street apprehensions just as intense as the one in the video. I did my part in my training. As a professional I expect the same from every handler. Not too much to ask since it's the law! My dogs could certify every day of the week. I hate seeing handlers panic every year to get through the cert. It pisses me off because I know the handler didn't do his job all year long. It also pisses me off because other cops and citizens rely on a piss poor trained dog to save their life.
> 
> Those are my feelings and they'll never change.


Damn fine letter Howard. Would that ALL K−9 handlers and trainers felt this way!


----------



## Lou Castle

Brett Bowen said:


> God help me but I agree with Lou on the point of tactics regardless if k9 is there or not.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts Brett.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Hahahahahahah, Thomas you just owned by Lou, you call him uncle Lou?, lol. Thomas should be calling Lou daddy. Hahahahahahah.


Googling police stats hahahahahahah.


----------



## Howard Knauf

I have to correct a statement that I made. I originally stated that the handler was in an unmarked unit. After looking back on the video I see that it was marked. The dog apparently came out through the drivers side door. Don't know why, or how it happened. I used to have my slider open even though we have remote door openers. 

When I was a brand new handler I used to think it was cool to have the slider open until I was on a traffic stop one night and the driver of the subject vehicle froze in terror for some unknown reason while I was speaking to him. I followed his gaze and saw that my K9 had decided to come through the slider and out the door because he had the need to piss on a telephone pole. I remember thinking to myself "man! That could have been bad!" All because I thought it was cool to have the dogs head poking out the slider into the main cabin of the cruiser.. Lesson learned. NEVER did it again.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Hahahahahahah, Thomas you just owned by Lou, you call him uncle Lou?, lol. Thomas should be calling Lou daddy. Hahahahahahah.
> 
> 
> Googling police stats hahahahahahah.


Don't be retarded Peter. Voodoo Lou Castle doesn't own anyone.
He thinks that since HE replied to a post NOT addressed to him
that somehow I broke my pledge to ignore him? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The information I posted is on Steve Leighs website NOT from google.
If you really want to see who "owns" who? Google Steve Leigh
World Famous Website


----------



## David Frost

That will be all of the mention of him, his website and his problems on this forum.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

If anyone has any further discussion about, K9 apprehension in Kentucky, now would be the time. Otherwise, like so many other threads, this one will be locked. 

DFrost


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Dunno Thomas, David is a tolerant guy, if he is putting a block on it sumthin's gotta be up with the credibility of yr source. Just sayin.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I realize that asking for your opinion on how a dog should be properly deployed might be quite extensive if you tried to describe every possible deployment scenario. Can you give a detailed account of the tactical procedures you would recommend for deploying a canine during a felony vehicle stop?
> 
> So, let's assume in the hypothetical scenario that the suspect is non-compliant and refuses to surrender. Also, would you deploy the dog differently if there was only one suspect vs. multiple suspects in the vehicle? If yes, how?


I think that a K−9 has little application on a traffic stop unless the suspect runs on foot. Then I'd send the dog after him but I'd not give chase. I don't want officers running past a car that has not been cleared. 

It would be a very rare situation that I sent a K−9 into a car. If the suspect refused to exit the car, before I'd send the dog, I'd use gas to drive him out. Maybe if he stayed in the car, I'd deploy the dog but that would be after I'd sent out for dinner and maybe breakfast and lunch too. There's no rush, he's stopped. If he wants to drive off, we'll continue the pursuit. I've run stops where the next shift started and we changed off the officers on the perimeter and in the cars at a T-stop. 

I can't think of a situation where I'd send a dog into a car that had more than one suspect in it. I think that's an excellent way to get a dog killed. 

There is a protocol for sending a dog into a car in the event that it's decided to use him like that. But it's fairly new and I don't want to discuss it on the open forum.


----------



## Lou Castle

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Hahahahahahah, Thomas you just owned by Lou, you call him uncle Lou?, lol. Thomas should be calling Lou daddy. Hahahahahahah.
> 
> Googling police stats hahahahahahah.


Peter that's how many of our exchanges have gone. Thomas posts some accusatory nonsense often, as in this case, that has nothing to do with a discussion that's underway, often that has little or nothing to do with me, and I slap him with the facts. I'll call him on his nonsense but he never replies. That may be one reason that he takes the cheap shots that are his trademark. He often falls back on his psycho buddy.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Dunno Thomas, David is a tolerant guy, if he is putting a block on it sumthin's gotta be up with the credibility of yr source. Just sayin.


Peter

Do your own research and quit drinking the kool aid


----------



## Christopher Jones

I agree with you Howard, and Im not so pro LEO as you are I wouldnt think.
The inital bite was warrented I believe, but the duration of the bite was unaccepable. Do many K9 handlers carry breaker bars (bite breaking sticks) with them incase the dog doesnt out? If not would this be of value in cases like this?
As both Howard and myself agree, this is common ground and the final word. 



Howard Knauf said:


> I'm pro LEO as anyone can get. I'm that way because it's my profession and expected of me. What's also expected is that I act in a professional manner and abide by all all laws and uphold the constitution. I expect other cops to act in the same manner. When one cop does something bad or suspect it reflects poorly on all cops. Just read any cop related thread on this board. That said, here is my feeling on this particular incident......
> 
> I know what its like to be in that exact scenario. I know what it's like to be in a long pursuit of a serious criminal that ends much like in the video. I know how easy it is to get into a mob mentality or lose your common sense and tactics when the pucker factor is high. I know what it's like to be in "prey drive" with lots of adrenaline flowing. I know whats its like to want to catch that POS scumbag. I remember being a rookie cop and doing stupid things. But I also matured in my work through experience, training and common sense.
> 
> There is a reason why most departments require a K9 handler candidate to have a few years on the road before going to a specialty unit. Those prospective officers need to mature on the street first. They need to know how o apply the law within seconds of witnessing an offense.They need to have a cool head. They need to be fair and not bullies with a sadistic mentality. K9 is high liability and a seasoned officer reduces that liability. Being new in K9 is like starting police work all over again from day one. Nobody wants to give a rookie patrol officer a dog when that officer hasn't proficiently learned the basics. It's a recipe for disaster.
> 
> In the video the handler can justify the initial dog bite due to the very fast chain of events. There is case law addressing such incidents. How did the dog get out? I don't know. The car he was in appeared to be an unmarked. I don't know if it had a kennel in it or not. That's another issue altogether if it goes to civil court.
> 
> At the end of the day there is no reason for that dog not to have been outed immediately when the handler tried to get him to release. The victim/perp doesn't care how the dog was trained. The jury doesn't care how the dog was trained. All both know is that the dog is supposed to out on command. As a professional you train your dog to out on a moving or fighting subject, period. Because the second you try to out the dog physically or verbally, any time thereafter is a violation or rights and excessive force. The lawyers will tell the jury that the handler knew the right time, attempted to do the right thing, but non compliance from the dog or immediate intervention of the handler constitutes excessive force.
> 
> Train the damn dog like it needs to be trained, otherwise pay the consequences. I have outed my dogs verbally numerous times from active and/or fighting suspects in real life street apprehensions just as intense as the one in the video. I did my part in my training. As a professional I expect the same from every handler. Not too much to ask since it's the law! My dogs could certify every day of the week. I hate seeing handlers panic every year to get through the cert. It pisses me off because I know the handler didn't do his job all year long. It also pisses me off because other cops and citizens rely on a piss poor trained dog to save their life.
> 
> Those are my feelings and they'll never change.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

David Frost said:


> That will be all of the mention of him, his website and his problems on this forum.
> 
> DFrost


David,

I didn't mention him until Castle posted (post 107)
"They come from a website put up by a psychotic cyber stalker"
from post 118 AFTER your post
"He often falls back on his psycho buddy."
Another attack on someone NOT on the WDF.

*Mod edit*
__________________


----------



## Howard Knauf

Christopher Jones said:


> Do many K9 handlers carry breaker bars (bite breaking sticks) with them incase the dog doesnt out? If not would this be of value in cases like this?


 Never seen one on the street. Possibly due to the fact that it often if connected to dog fighting and Pit Bulls. The police are supposed to have better control as professionals. 




> As both Howard and myself agree, this is common ground and the final word.


Finally!!=D>


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Chris, is it a wise business plan for someone investing so much money importing police dogs and police dog semen from a police dog breeding and a police do training program to be so quick to put up what amounts to dozens of cop hater threads, yr most active topic, oh you just post them to analyse the training.....lol.


----------



## Christopher Jones

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Chris, is it a wise business plan for someone investing so much money importing police dogs and police dog semen from a police dog breeding and a police do training program to be so quick to put up what amounts to dozens of cop hater threads, yr most active topic, oh you just post them to analyse the training.....lol.


Proberbly not lol.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Wasn't trying to be a smart A, but ya. pups gotta go somewhere and the market aint huge.


----------



## Christopher Jones

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Wasn't trying to be a smart A, but ya. pups gotta go somewhere and the market aint huge.


 I dont breed for profit, and I dont breed very often (Last litter was 4 years ago), so its not really an issue for me. I have more people who want pups from me than I will breed.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

And ya aint breeding pets thats for sure, lol, a few other dutchies have made it to our shores. Hope they do well.


----------



## Phil Dodson

Help me, Help me! Somebody help me, I'm losing my mind!!


----------



## Britney Pelletier

Well, that was entertaining! :lol: :-\"


----------



## Christopher Jones

I hope all goes well for you Howard. On this forum you have been very straight forward in your veiws on bad cops, bad procedures and the like. You have called out bad cops as just that, when alot of other police would prefer to say nothing. You come across as an honest cop who knows right from wrong. 
And just as bad cops make your job more difficult, perps who claim police brutality when there was none make it difficult for people who have been mistreated to get their justice.
Good luck.




Howard Knauf said:


> Rick,
> 
> I also know what its like to be sued in federal court for rights violations and excessive force. I am being sued right now! Don't everyone whose not a cop think it doesn't happen. You can't think of just getting the bad guy. You HAVE to think about sitting in court with the realization that you can lose EVERYTHING to a scumbag. I mean everything...job, house, retirement, vehicles, vacation home...everything you worked your ass off for, and the citizens you did it for.
> 
> I'm confident in my case. We did nothing wrong. We followed the rules to the letter. The combination of the biggest POS scumbag lawyer and some dash cam video that looks bad has me stressed to the hilt because I don't want to be homeless and broke. I'm too damn old to recover!
> 
> I shoulda been a fukkin fireman.


----------



## David Frost

Phil Dodson said:


> Help me, Help me! Somebody help me, I'm losing my mind!!


Just don't drink the liability paranoia koolaid. It seems to be addictive and impairs judgement.
ha ha ha
DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf

David Frost said:


> Just don't drink the liability paranoia koolaid. It seems to be addictive and impairs judgement.
> ha ha ha
> DFrost



It's not paranoia if it's true. Unless I'm reading this wrong.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro

Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that they're not after you - as someone said, or was it a Nirvana lyric.


----------



## David Frost

Howard Knauf said:


> It's not paranoia if it's true. Unless I'm reading this wrong.


Howard, I understand the concerns of today. This thread however, has theme that, in my mind, indicates some worry more about liability and the potential of a lawsuit than seeing an officer go home when the shift is over. I read it that way and right or wrong it's my opinion. It bothers me. I teach my handlers, do your job, do it correctly. The lawsuits will come regardless. No where do prior court decisions require perfection, particularly on decisions made in the "heat of battle" so to speak. I guess if I had something to sell, I might beat a different drum. I don't. I just put guys to work on a daily basis.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

Paranoia is a mental illness where you think people are out to get you, but they're not. If they are, it's not paranoia. And they are. Getting bit by a police K−9 is sometimes known as "Winning the (insert name of agency here) Lottery." Lawyers with nothing better to do, will file civil suits hoping that the city will just settle out of court for the nuisance of filing a few hours worth of papers, and some will. 

The first duty of any police officer should be, going home in the same (or better) condition that you arrived at work. But liability should be a concern, especially for a K−9 handler. Howard mentioned the trauma of having to consider the effect of losing everything, _"job, house, retirement, vehicles, vacation home...everything you worked your ass off for ... "_ It's not fun sitting down and listing on a court document EVERYTHING of value that you own, the amount of money in your bank accounts, children's college funds, etc. And then thinking about handing it all over to some career criminal that your dog bit. 

The decision whether or not to use a K−9 should be carefully made before he comes out of the car. Liability shouldn't haunt K−9 handlers, but it should be a consideration. Once the decision has been made to use the dog, tactics and safety become the primary concerns. But liability should linger in the back of the mind, as the situation changes. Handlers, before doing a search, should ask a supervisor, "If my dog finds this guy, what are we going to book him for?" If the answer is a misdemeanor that does not involve a gun, or something that does not involve the possibility of violence and danger to life and limb, the dog should probably stay in the car.


----------



## Howard Knauf

David, I get what your saying 100%. In my case (matter of fact, I been sued twice before) if you do your job correctly you'd think that you were golden but that's not true, You can be sued for anything. Whether it stick or not is another story.

I would be remiss in letting a handler think that just getting the job done is all there is to worry about. This is why I think only seasoned officers should be allowed to test for the position. LEOs with street time tend to be more level headed and clear thinking when things are bad. They tend to fall back on their experience even when they become new handlers. K9 has a monster learning curve as you know. It takes years to be proficient because there is no set routine like on a sport field. You never know what's going to happen on any given deployment. This is why you need seasoned guys putting in for it. They are less likely to get caught up in the whole insane scenario and do something silly.

Getting sued SHOULDN'T be in our minds but we'd be foolish not to think about it. All it takes is one screw up in a high liability situation and you end up where I am now. If you do your job correctly there's a chance you walk out of a federal court room intact. You make one stupid mistake because you are so focused on getting the man that nothing else matters, well then you end up broke if you're lucky..incarcerated if you aren't.


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Howard, I understand the concerns of today. This thread however, has theme that, in my mind, indicates some worry more about liability and the potential of a lawsuit than seeing an officer go home when the shift is over.


If you've gotten this from anything I said, you've put it in there. I've said nothing of the kind. 



David Frost said:


> I read it that way and right or wrong it's my opinion.


You're welcome to your opinion but it's not something I've ever said. 



David Frost said:


> It bothers me. I teach my handlers, do your job, do it correctly. The lawsuits will come regardless.


That's true. No matter how well LEO's do their job, they may get sued. Usually we win those lawsuits. But sometimes mistakes are made and sometimes LEO's do the wrong thing. Sometimes we lose those lawsuits. Sometimes LEO's go to jail. 



David Frost said:


> No where do prior court decisions require perfection, particularly on decisions made in the "heat of battle" so to speak.


The closer a handler can come to _"perfection"_ the better off he is. 



David Frost said:


> I guess if I had something to sell, I might beat a different drum.


What I'm _"selling"_ is doing K−9 work the right way. That has several facets. The first, and most important, is being able to use tactics properly so that everyone goes home in one piece. The second is training to have control in all situations, being able to direct the dog and to call him off with a verbal command from a distance or to stop him before a bite occurs, if the situation isn't right. The third is being aware of when it's appropriate to utilize the dog and when it's not. Take away any one of them and you can have a disaster! It does little good for a handler to survive a life threatening situation, only to lose everything he owns in a lawsuit.


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> If you've gotten this from anything I said, you've put it in there. I've said nothing of the kind.
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to your opinion but it's not something I've ever said.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Mr. Castle, whether you like it or not, I may well have opinions not spawned by something you said. I'm fairly certain I was having opinions about dogs, training and utilization, possibly before you started working dogs, certainly long before I ever heard your name. 

It's also my opinion it's a bit egocentric of you too feel you must give me permission to have an opinion, but thanks anyways. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Mr. Castle, whether you like it or not, I may well have opinions not spawned by something you said. I'm fairly certain I was having opinions about dogs, training and utilization, possibly before you started working dogs, certainly long before I ever heard your name.


Mr. Frost, I’m sure that you've held many opinions for a very long time. Back in post #8 you gave your opinion regarding this deployment_"Tactically, not all that much to say, * it wasn't bad tactics."*_ [Emphasis Added] I have not seen you write that you've changed your mind on this. This would lead a reasonable person to believe that you think that in this situation it was perfectly OK for that K−9 handler to run into an unknown situation, placing himself and other officers, who did the same thing, in danger. It would also seem that you think that the handler's tactics in trying to remove the dog were acceptable. Likewise it seems to be your opinion, that you think that it was OK for the dog to continue to bite a non-resisting suspect for about a minute and twenty-five seconds. Are those your opinions Mr. Frost? Is that how you _"teach [your] handlers [to] do [their] job, do it correctly?"_ 

Since it's your opinion that this deployment _"... wasn't bad tactics."_ do you see any problem with a crossfire here? Do you see any problem with the handler putting himself in just about the worst possible position, on what should be a felony stop? Do you see how many officers it takes to hold the suspect down while another one cuts away at his clothing so they can get the dog away from him. Are these the tactics that you teach? Do you find them acceptable? 

Earlier I asked you this question, but I didn't see an answer, "Don't you train your handlers that when the suspect gives up, that they should not have their dogs bite him?" And here's another one. Don't you train your handlers that when a bitten suspect surrenders, that they should get their dog outed as soon as it's safe to do so? 

On another note, does anyone know who trains the Louisville, KY PD's handlers and K−9's? Anyone know where they buy their dogs?


----------



## David Frost

I see you felt it necessary to make a paragraph out of eleven of my words. I see you've made assumptions and have formed opinions based on those eleven words. Since I don't pretend to have to tell you that it is ok for you to have opinions, then carry on. I understand it's important to you to have that winning feeling. I limit what I say because, in all truth, I feel I might see it again someday. Only then it will be in a setting where only facts are discussed. I don't mind discussing facts.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> I see you felt it necessary to make a paragraph out of eleven of my words.


Your initial statement on this was _"... it wasn't bad tactics."_ That's an awkward way of saying that he used acceptable (or good) tactics. I think that he used HORRIBLE tactics that put him and the other officers at the scene, (who BTW, also used poor tactics) at risk. Does the word count really matter? 

Anyone who runs up on a carjacking suspect at the end of a chase has either lost control of himself or wasn't trained properly. He's put himself in just about the worst possible place he can be. If you think that this is either acceptable or good, you have no place in training police officers how to do felony stops. You may have vast experience but this is not really up for debate. It's teaching officers that stepping in front of a (potential) gun is the right way to do things! 



David Frost said:


> I see you've made assumptions and have formed opinions based on those eleven words.


No Mr. Frost, I ASKED SOME QUESTIONS _"based on those eleven words."_ I asked for clarification and if you still held the same opinion that you expressed a couple of days ago. You had the opportunity to explain, but decided instead to play games and divert attention away from those questions. 



David Frost said:


> Since I don't pretend to have to tell you that it is ok for you to have opinions, then carry on. I understand it's important to you to have that winning feeling.
> 
> DFrost


This is not about winning. It's about seeing that handlers receive proper training on the law, handling their K−9's and the tactics involved. My hope is to see that K−9 handlers don't get bad information that may put them at risk, and that seems to be what you are offering. You had the opportunity to say that you'd changed your opinion, after all, it was given before it was pointed out that it appeared that the suspect was in the act of surrendering as soon as his door came open, but you chose not to. Since you've not amended your initial statement on this it seems that you think that this was a good (or at least an acceptable) use of tactics. I'm amazed! There's so much wrong here that I'm going to use it in my classes as an example of WHAT NOT TO DO at the end of a pursuit. It's a shame that you're more invested in playing games and evasions than a teaching opportunity.


----------



## Britney Pelletier

Lou Castle said:


> On another note, does anyone know who trains the Louisville, KY PD's handlers and K−9's? Anyone know where they buy their dogs?


They purchase almost exclusively only KNPV PH1 dogs.. I'm sure you train lots of those.


----------



## Lou Castle

Britney Pelletier said:


> They purchase almost exclusively only KNPV PH1 dogs.. I'm sure you train lots of those.


Thanks for the response. 

I train whatever dog the agency that I'm working with, has. I don't think I've ever asked if a dog had a title or what kind of title it was. Sometimes they tell me, but I don't care. 

Do you know where they get them and/or who does their training?


----------



## Lou Castle

Here's some more video from the helicopter. The bite in this one is unedited so it can be timed. Looks like it lasts about 1:25. 

http://www.lmpd.com/news/story.php?sid=965


----------



## Doug Zaga

Yep, that dog sure would not out! Wonder what the AAR will recommend?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Doug Zaga said:


> Yep, that dog sure would not out! Wonder what the AAR will recommend?


A Voodoo out protocol seminar. You need three decoys, A 25 million dollar insurance policy, written permission from the land owner and the Chief of Police. Please provide video tape so I can use it as a bad
example at MY next class.................... ROTFLMFAO


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Please provide video tape so I can use it as a bad
> example at MY next class.................... ROTFLMFAO


Your next class Thomas? That would be your first one right? ROFL.


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> It's a shame that you're more invested in playing games and evasions than a teaching opportunity.


Games and evasions. Well alright then. As previously stated, it's not important to me to "win" a discussion on the internet and I'm not selling anything. I can understand how the liability paranoia plays into what you peddle. Unless I'm sadly mistaken, and I really don't think I am, the person playing games is quite evident. None-the-less, thanks for the discourse to me and others in this thread. It was quite revealing. I don't use the LOL's and ROLF's of the internet world. I can assure you though; chuckle, chuckle with a shake of my head. With that and your kind permission to have an opinion I really have nothing more to say to you. I don't trust you. You can ROLF and win again.

DFrost


----------



## Erik Berg

Tactics aside, is a dog that that won´t out in a real life situation always a reflection of the training, or could you have a nice out on a suit/hiden sleeve on a dog that is intense in training that suddenly disapears when the dog is biting for real? Or is a good out on equipment normally also the same when the dog bites for real, I understand the out can change somehow if the dog is meeting heavy resistance, but this was not the case here what I saw.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: My Next Class*

Name that Internet Expert

I have trained over 5 billion dogs
but I don't have ONE single video

I am in high demand for my seminars
but there is no one on the WDF that has been to one

There has been ONE person who has actually seen me at an event in person
BUT her information isn't accurate because she dared to question my version of events.

I am a highly sought after adviser on e-collar use, tactical deployment of Police K9's and legal issues
But I can't name any department that uses my services or show any
video of my training because I don't want to get sued.

I critique any and all video of actual LE doing their job
But it's OK because I'm only interested in helping all the K9 handlers in the world to up their game to my high standards. It has nothing to do with being right at all costs.

The first 25 correct answers will be inducted in to the Internet Expert Hall of Fame


----------



## Lou Castle

*Name that Internet and real life zero*

I have never trained a single dog. I have a fancy signature line that would lead some to believe that I have, but in reality it’s a lie. I've never really trained a dog myself. Instead, I have others train my dogs, then I title them, and pretend that it's all my work. I'm a fake and a fraud. 

I've never done a seminar, and probably never will, because I'm FOS and have little real knowledge. 

I was once offered the opportunity to train without cost, with someone who knows a lot more than I do. Because he was traveling out of his home state, he wanted me to make the arrangements for a location, insurance and assistants. He was going to video tape that training and make it available on this forum, but because I knew that this would give him credibility and make me look like the fool that I really am, I refused to accept his offer of training. 

My ONLY claim to fame is that I dislike someone on a forum and whenever he writes something I attack him personally. I get most of my information from a psychotic cyber stalker who usually has it wrong too. I critique comments made by this person because he's kicked my a$$ repeatedly in our exchanges (and has just done it again). I pretend that he's not asked a single question of me and instead of answering them (which would really show my ignorance), try to make fun of his 30 year LE career. I fail at this too, because failing is my life. 

NO ONE has ever actually seen me teach at a seminar, because I have nothing to offer, so no one will ask me to do one, even if *I *paid *them! *

I like to pretend that I know how to use an Ecollar, but I only know how to blast a dog into submission. I know nothing about drives, tactical deployment of police K−9's or legal issues regarding them. No LE agency would hire me if I was the last dog owner on the planet. 

But it's OK because I’m an a$$hat, and even though I get owned most of the time, I pretend that it hasn't happened. I'm happy in my own little world of denial. 

The first correct answer will be awarded the title of Mr. or Ms. Obvious.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas and Lou, as entertaining as this is, maybe it needs to go to PMs.

Please.



The "please" doesn't mean this isn't a warning. It is a warning. 

Don't mention each other, Thomas and Lou. It doesn't work out.

"Ignore" is a good function. (And please, no comments about "never did, never will." Don't care. Just sayin' it might help.)

Thank you.


----------



## Lou Castle

Erik Berg said:


> Tactics aside, is a dog that that won´t out in a real life situation always a reflection of the training, or could you have a nice out on a suit/hiden sleeve on a dog that is intense in training that suddenly disapears when the dog is biting for real? Or is a good out on equipment normally also the same when the dog bites for real, I understand the out can change somehow if the dog is meeting heavy resistance, but this was not the case here what I saw.


No it's not always a reflection of the training. A suspect who fights very hard and hurts the dog a lot can tip the dog over and get this result. A suspect who rolls over on top of a dog and traps him on the bottom can put him into "survival mode" so that he forgets his training and won't release. This will happen easier with a weak dog, but this dog does not seem to be weak at all, and this suspect does none of these things. You're right that _"heavy resistance ... was not the case here. "_ 

A good LE trainer will anticipate this and train for it. The handler still has to have a way to get the dog to release. This is the exact situation that the tactical lift off was developed for! In the very rare instance that this occurs, it makes it very dangerous for the handler, who now has to get within a few feet of a felon who has not yet been searched and can now easily assault the handler who is busy with his dog, even if he does not have a weapon. But some trainers who are incapable of training and maintaining a verbal out, from a distance, turned it into "the way that it should be done most of the time" and then sold it to unsuspecting LEO's who didn't know any better. 

When those things occur the first recourse might be the Ecollar, if it's been used in the training. Hit the button with it set at a higher-than-training level and it might bring him back. If that fails, then the handler should be able to do a "tactical liftoff" where the dog has no choice, but to release.


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Games and evasions. Well alright then.


I asked you quite a few very specific questions about this incident. Instead of answering them, you accused me of making assumptions. You pointed out that I wrote a paragraph based on your _"eleven"_ words. Instead of discussing the circumstances, you insinuated that, since you've been training dogs for longer than I have, that you were right, when it was obvious that you were not. Yes, _"games and evasions."_ 



David Frost said:


> I'm not selling anything.


You should be selling something Mr. Frost. You should be selling the concept that good tactics are what keep a K−9 handler safer, in what is one of the most dangerous jobs in LE. You should be selling the fact that bad tactics, such as are shown in the video, put them at unnecessary risk. You should be selling the concept that good training reduces liability, and allows a handler to use the good tactics that he should have been taught. You should be selling the concept that the most important concern is getting home safely but that liability exists and it does no good if a handler survives the incident, only to lose his home, his family and everything he's worked for, because he did the wrong thing. In this era of dash cams, helicopters following pursuits and video cameras in everyone's cell phones you should be selling the concept that lacking control and/or necessary knowledge that forces a handler to get assistance from another officer who has to cut away clothing to get a dog off a bite, screams "SUE ME!" 



David Frost said:


> I can understand how the liability paranoia plays into what you peddle.


As a couple of us have pointed out, paranoia is a sickness where you think that someone is out to get you, and they're not. THE FACT IS, that there ARE a great number of people out to get K−9 handlers. This isn't paranoia, it's an acceptance of reality. This is the reality of doing LE today. Perhaps with all your experience, you're living in the past. Lawyers who see dollar signs file suits against us for the type of deployments that this discussion is all about. Ignoring that fact and calling this _"paranoia"_ does a disservice to handlers who are reading this. 



David Frost said:


> Unless I'm sadly mistaken, and I really don't think I am, the person playing games is quite evident.


I agree. YOU are the one who evaded and avoided my questions and instead tried the ad hominem attack, which you now continue. YOU made a comment very early in this discussion that you thought that what was shown in the video _"wasn't bad tactics."_ YOU are the one who got called on this absurd statement. YOU are the one who's ignored many questions because you know the truth, they've already shown how wrong you are. 

And so I asked some questions. The most important, did you still think that this _" ... wasn't bad tactics?"_ Instead of taking the opportunity to change your mind, you decided to stonewall. I pray that you're not the expert witness that they call to defend the lawsuit that may arise out of this incident. Such stone walling while the opposing attorney is showing, frame-by-frame, that there's no reason that this bite should have lasted more than a few seconds, at most, will cost the department and maybe the officer quite a bit. 



David Frost said:


> None-the-less, thanks for the discourse to me and others in this thread. It was quite revealing.


It was indeed! 



David Frost said:


> I really have nothing more to say to you. I don't trust you. You can ROLF and win again.


I once had respect for you. But after this discussion, it's gone. You had an excellent teaching opportunity. You made an error, had it pointed out, and then, instead of changing your position, decided to play games and tried to shift the attention away from yourself, by belittling me. Had you done the right thing, handlers and others reading this would have seen that even someone with decades of experience can make a mistake, but once he discovers it, can change and learn from it. Instead you squandered the opportunity. You left people with common sense dangling in the wind while you told them that _"wasn't bad tactics."_ for a K−9 handler, to leave the relative safety of the cover/concealment of the steel blocks and sheet metal of his car, and to run into the open at the end of a pursuit of a potentially armed suspect. You should be ashamed. I'm not laughing Mr. Frost. 

I remember going to the police academy, when I was first hired. We came in from PT and sat down at our desks and the room lights went out. The next thing I saw was a slide on a screen that showed four CHP officers, bloody, and lying dead on gurneys. I can still remember their names, Frago, Gore, Pence and Alleyn. This was the end result of what is known as "The Newhall Incident" (aka the Newhall Massacre). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRTM9Vg0pgs The first mistake made was that the first two CHP officers had *walked up on a car that contained two men who were known to be armed! * One of the murderers was heard to say as he put a bullet into the head of one of the officers who was looking down at his gun as he reloaded (instead of watching his surroundings), "I got you now you dumb SOB." 

And so, when I see police officers running up on cars at the end of pursuits the hair stands up on the back of my neck. There's no reason for it. These days it's usually it's because they get adrenalized and forget their training. Or in some cases, apparently the K−9 handlers that you train, they don't even get such information. 

That's exactly what happens in this video and anyone who won't say that it was the wrong thing to do either hasn't thought it all the way through, or is in the bunker trying to keep intact the thin blue line, where cops can do no wrong. Perhaps he hopes to be hired as the defense expert witness and is preparing his case. I have no respect for someone who does this, especially when he's been shown the potentially fatal error of it and still stonewalls. That handler made a mistake. This time it may have resulted in an unnecessary bite. Forget liability for the moment, next time it could get him killed.


----------



## Timothy Stacy

*Re: Name that Internet and real life zero*



Lou Castle said:


> I have never trained a single dog. I have a fancy signature line that would lead some to believe that I have, but in reality it’s a lie. I've never really trained a dog myself. Instead, I have others train my dogs, then I title them, and pretend that it's all my work. I'm a fake and a fraud.
> 
> I've never done a seminar, and probably never will, because I'm FOS and have little real stants.
> 
> I like to pretend that I know how to use an Ecollar, but I only know how to blast a dog into submission. I know nothing about drives, tactical deployment of police K.


Finally some sensible admission to what we all know!
Admitting your faults is the first step "Lou Castle"!
The truth will set you free and this is a step in the right direction to the false front you put up. A sense of freedom has probably overcame you by now! I'm proud of you but don't believe the fight is over! You may become overwhelmed by the feeling (know it all) again, but stay strong and realize you are a mortal being who has past experiences of not being good enough that bring about these feelings!

Cheers

PS I barfed when you said "fancy signature line"


----------



## Howard Knauf

Uhhh...Your command of the English language astounds me.](*,) 
Or maybe its sarcasm that can't be determined by silent key strokes.


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Howard Knauf said:


> Uhhh...Your command of the English language astounds me.](*,)
> Or maybe its sarcasm that can't be determined by silent key strokes.


I'm more astounded by your companies videos on YouTube ahahahhhhhh


----------



## Connie Sutherland

We're done with the topic. I can tell.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Timothy Stacy said:


> I'm more astounded by your companies videos on YouTube ahahahhhhhh


 Just for the record....I'm no longer associated with Specialist K9 thank you very much. Got a new signature line, check it out Timmy. Can't wait for your critique because it means so much to me.


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Excuse me Connie, I just realized that Howard gave up on the dogs LOL. Now on to guns, geeezzz. Desperate ?
What's next? Landscaping!
Time to face reality Howard!

Perhaps dog day care or a dog walker . 
Snort snort


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Howard Knauf said:


> Just for the record....I'm no longer associated with Specialist K9 thank you very much. Got a new signature line, check it out Timmy. Can't wait for your critique because it means so much to me.


It starts with the key words, "tactical"! Along with all the other punch lines LMAO!
Same shit different venue Howard!

You were done with the dogs before you started! You are not a dog trainer, maybe a snake oil salesman but not a dog trainer!


----------



## Howard Knauf

Will never give up on the dogs. Look at the site....better yet, look at space coast K9. Just getting up and running. Thanks for helping me plug it.


----------



## Doug Zaga

Tim is this that you bowing and praising your Unlce Mike in the back :-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEumZEWX-_Q


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Howard Knauf said:


> Will never give up on the dogs. Look at the site....better yet, look at space coast K9. Just getting up and running. Thanks for helping me plug it.


Taking a proverbial crap on it is better than nothing! Guess my key strokes aren't so silent after all


----------



## Howard Knauf

Why so bitter, Timmy? It's precious time wasted and counterproductive. If you fall out tomorrow you'll be remembered as a hater. Maybe that's what you want, who knows. Whatever makes you happy. Have not the dogs been good enough to you?


----------



## Lou Castle

Whatsmatter Timmy, not enough fiber in your diet? System backed up? 

Wednesday evening I'll be headed to Arizona for my *55th seminar* to be given at the K−9 SAR Conference. Someone who saw a presentation I did at a seminar in NV two years ago, liked it so much that she booked me then, for this seminar, to be given two years later! Not sure if I'll have an Internet connection or the time to play with you folks. 

Meanwhile ...


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Lou Castle said:


> Whatsmatter Timmy, not enough fiber in your diet? System backed up?
> 
> Wednesday evening I'll be headed to Arizona for my *55th seminar* to be given at the K−9 SAR Conference. Someone who saw a presentation I did at a seminar in NV two years ago, liked it so much that she booked me then, for this seminar, to be given two years later! Not sure if I'll have an Internet connection or the time to play with you folks.
> 
> Meanwhile ...


I'm not surprised! People in the dog world are very naive to say the least. What's the saying, one persons garbage is anothers treasure! I'm not buying your garbage Lou!
LOL, boy you are really boasting!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Timothy Stacy said:


> I'm not surprised! People in the dog world are very naive to say the least. What's the saying, one persons garbage is anothers treasure! I'm not buying your garbage Lou!
> LOL, boy you are really boasting!


Tim

55 seminars with an average of 5? dogs = 275 dogs 
Yet not one video or one person out of 6K WDF members have attended.


----------

