My dog is protection trained. However he was never trained to bite and hold. Sometimes he does, but often times he'll release and then re-target on another part of the body. And sometimes he'll do this multipe times over a short span of time.

I was speaking with a trainer about this and the trainer said that if my dog ever "went off" on a home invader that I could be held liable. He stated that responsible training would include teaching the dog to bite and hold the bad guy.

Is that true?

I'm not the biggest, strongest guy in the world. But if I was in a fight with some big strong bad guy who had kicked my door down, with my dog helping me, I think my chances of winning the fight are good. However, if it takes all of my strength to keep the guy's knife from plunging into my chest, I might just need that my dog goes all out on the guy rather than simply biting and holding him in one spot.

Are my concerns warranted or am I missing somethhing?

I know it's a stretch to ask for some input on this as nobody around here seems to have an opinion on anything. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> :rolleyes:

I can't see how you are going to be at any greater legal disadvantage as long as the circumstances are such that the dog's bite is justified. . .or in this case the BITES are justified. More damage does = more doctor bills, something to think about.

I do think a protection dog that knows how to target, bite hard, and hold is going to be more effective in most situations than a dog that grips and re-grips constantly.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Some criminals train for fights against poice dogs and it is easier for them to get ahold of a dog that takes one bite as opposed to mutiple strikes.

Hi Russell

I don’t know what your law say’s, but common law uses a principal of Minimum force to counter an attacker, so yes you wont send your dog on the postman for scratching your freshly painted post box, you would use it to protect your self or a third party from grievous bodily harm.

So in defense of a firm grip single bite versus a multiple bite, if you have a pistol would it take three shots or if you had a shot gun would it take on shot with say ssg – buck shot 8 projectiles, to stop the attacker

The courts in general do not keep them selves busy with splitting hairs

I think this is straight forward, I have done several real life attacks with a dog, it’s a myth that a dog will go in and bite and hold, it has never and will very seldom happen, The attacker is pumping adrenalin and punching endorphins, so he is trying to get the dog off his arm, the dog is not a tank that has six inch Armour, it he feels pain he will take the path of least resistance and counter attack.

An other item for consideration in the civil litigation realm is this; is the dog retargetting legitimately in the defense of itself in avoiding an off-fending appendage / weapon or is the dog flawed in character and releasing its initial target only to seize the next and nearest target of opportunity? Robert's mention of how much damage the dog does being irrelevant so long as the deployment was within legal parameters is close, in my opinion, but not exactly right on.
Initailly, when a protection dog is deployed in a real world scenerio your immediate survival of your physical and psychological environment ( the fear of the imminent threat of serious physical injury, protracted disability, or death of yourself or a third party; ARS 13-401) is your only concern. Your next consideration SHOULD be the civil legal remifications. Being criminally prosecuted for a dog deployment is remote. Part of the reason for that is the burden of proof. In a criminal case, one must prove mental culpability (sp)*intent to do harm* and prove this beyond a reasonable doubt ( intentionally and 100% responsible). This is both difficult and not financially rewarding. In a civil case, the plaintiff need only prove negligence and prove it with a preponderance of evidence ( negligent and 51% responsible). In a criminal trial, the rules are different, also. Multitudes of photos demonstrating "horrific" damages incurred by a dog most likely will be ruled as prejudicial and thusly, inadmissable. In a civil case, this hardly ever happens. I would teach my PP dog to grip and hold to avoid the "harboring and encouraging a vicious animal" argument. Read your State Statues and local ordinances. These issues should be considered and weigh heavily in your training program. JMO.

Another thing to consider is that most juries aren't idiots. If someone breaks into your house with you,there there is an obvious threat to you and your families immediate safety. So what happens to the assailant is pretty much on him. You just have to know how to word it right when the police get there. Now the situation isn't as sealed up if it occurs on the street....

Obviously none of you guys are from Iowa. When I moved here, the law stated in the county I lived...If a bad guy broke into your house and your dog bit him. Your dog was euthanized for biting a human. We have since changed that law. However, still a person B&E you home is not considered a threat. If you would pull a gun the person who broke into your house has the 'right' to shoot you in self defense. No BS. Just went through a course about this... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

i have been told in georgia on occassions( by law enforcement people )if things like this happen to be sure to state that you felt that your live was in danger.not even attempting to be a laywer here, this is simply what i have been told before.

We have since changed that law. However, still a person B&E you home is not considered a threat.

A good reason to live in New mexico where you can shoot people in your home, stop 'em from burglarizing, and feel pretty sure you won't see a crimninal court except to testify at the suspects trial (now we won't give 'em much time in prison we don't like to keep them at the state's expense for long out here).
Of course civil litigation can be a problem anywhere.