The dog attacked a nine-year-old boy and dragged him 20 feet. That is pretty serious. If I was that kid's parent I would be mad as hell and would want that dog (any dog) put down, too. It is a pretty understandable initial reaction, even though it is not the right step to take.

No one in the thread that proceeded this said that this situation is not serious. It is unfortunate that this occured and should be addressed.
But, as naive as this poster is he cannot see that an accidental bite is being turned into a civil rights issue by an activist(trying to show an act against a group by the dog and therefore the officer involved and thereby placing it into the relm of a 4th amendment violation). This situation in no way warrants that (If the poster so desires I will pull up the case law to reference). Yet, to do so will serve someone's agenda. To bring the department and or officer under the scrutiny of a civil rights violation, which is what is being furthered here is abominable.
Sometimes an accident is just an accident. Maybe preventable, maybe not. But, most likely not a preconceived attempt at taking the civil rights of a person of color granted under the 4th Amendment to all of us.

Your post can't be more clear and right on than that, very nice Kev.

I feel bad for the kid and his parents, sure, but there is no way a dog can expierence racial hate, that's a human emotion, it seems a clear case of confusion on the dogs part to me, indicated by the officer who DID NOT relese the dog because he knew it would have created a problem for whatever reason, so being relesed by accident proved the officers first thought. I think the officer made a good judgment call on this one and an accident is sometimes an accident as Kev pointed out. Guarenteed the dog would have bitten a white/yellow or black kid standing there, I'm sure his only goal was to protect his handler, as he was trained.

The link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55010,00.html

While it is quite possible that a dog make the wrong association about people due either to poor socialisation or the anxieties of their owners, leading to dogs that reflect the social prejudicies of their owners, it's unlikely to be the case here.

I think it reflects the circumstances of deployment than any 'dislike' the dog may have developed of black people.

It's a charge that can be readily disproven by testing the dog with 'friendly' and 'unfriendly' strangers (preferably decoys) of a variety of races.

The Police Department in question may have work do to regarding improving its relationship with the neighborhood it patrols and may need to review the deployment and control strategies it has for its canine unit, but racism? Very, very, very unlikely. But then local politicians have got to try to earn their keep by being visible -- and it's easier to find racial undertones in an accident than to sit down and work on the problem of depressed, drug-ridden neighbourhoods.

2 cents (and you get change!)

Dei.

I just read the link to the dog bite story. I believe the city council woman. We just made a raid of the local KKK chapter and there was Dolpho sitting in the front row wearing his own Grand Wizard special bedsheet. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and evading arrest. What a joke. But unfortunatly, that's a politician for you. Anything they do to get their name in the paper is free advertisement for their future election campaigns.

A police K-9 trainer from Australia once told me that a dog's world is primarily associated by scents and associations with certain scents. He told me dogs were not racialy predjudice but scent predjudice. Some examples he used are that a person that is intoxicated with alcohol will have a different smell then one who is not. He in some cases the dogs reations will be completely different to that person because of the scent of alcohol and that because of that scent may not even consider the person even human. He further stated that different scents is also true of different races and as well as genders, and even children. His point being that when the dog is socialized every effort must be made to introduce him to every kind of human being possible, every age race and situation so that the dog does not associate any one type of human scent as human and the others as foes. I am not an expert but alot of this trainer's points seem valid enough that when raising my GSDs I make sure that they have been exposed to every human variety as possible. I have even had people of different racial group stay with us as well as play with him so as make sure that there is no confusion on his part about all us being the same regarless of color or scents for that matter. I have also noticed that here in the south many Afro-Americans have a stigma about GSDs and and associate them with the racial south of the 60's and 50's, at least that is what one of my Afro-American friends told me. he himself grew up in the segregated south and is terrified of GSD whether police K-9 or not. He is however getting use to my GSD. I hope this has not offended anyone and hope what I wrote makes sense.

Kevin what are you talking about a 4th amendment violation? 4th amendment is search and seizure. I must be behind on my constitutional law because I can’t see how that applies.

So it sounds like everyone agrees that dogs can recognize race, and whether you call it prejudice (not a good word because people have a preconceived (incorrect) notion of the definition of prejudice) or training, dogs can be trained OR learn on their own to be hostile towards certain races (along with genders, ages, whatever).

So exactly what information does the article give? The dog attacked a child, and there are three other complaints that the dog has attacked based on race. Does it say whether the other complaints were ever addressed? Does it say what the department’s opinion is of the other complaints? You absolutely cannot tell from this article whether or not the dog has truly got a problem. So you are just as stupid or stupider than any politician if you decide the complaints are untrue without ANY evidence on either side. All I ever argued is that it is possible. And it is. So it should be looked into.

Kevin, can we close this one yet?