I'm not a lawyer or involved in law enforcement but regarding the LAPD K-9 study: As a layman I would not expect that a bite from a pet dog and a bite from a police dog to be equal. The pet dog category includes everything from GSDs to little ratty dogs. Without any statics I'd still be willing to bet the average Police dog is in stronger, faster, and bites harder than the average pet. Pet dogs are not trained to subdue a fleeing suspect nor conditioned to fighting with a suspect that fights back. Most people when bitten by a pet are not running from the police and trying to fight the dog. They just want the dog to let go.

This may be out of line but here's my 2 cents -

It seems like society keeps trying to take useful tools out of the hands of the police. K-9s, tasers, flashlights, etc all have there place. They can be misused but if we keep limit the police enough they won't have very many choices to make. I for one don't want to see a world where the only tool available to them is a gun. If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer then you start to treat all of your problems like nails.

Oh yeah.... Don't run or fight with the police <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mr. Cook, your analysis study is flawed. To compare a police dog with an ordinary dog is like comparing a 357 to a BB gun. The fact that those seriously injured by ordinary dogs were the very young or very old only substantiates the fact that, “it IS the action of the person being bitten that escalates the severity of the injuries that result” (almost all adult males at or near their physical prime). Make no mistake, they are not victims, they are criminals. And what 3 year period does this study cover??? Are you using old statistics, antiquated training methods and deployment procedures, to fortify your position instead of using current years and improved training methods???

I know I should keep my uninformed self outta this thread, but...

It seems that all this disagreement over whether or not these bites from a police K9 constitute "serious injuries" only reinforces the argument that a definition of deadly force that includes "serious injuries" is too subjective. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Cook?

This just keeps getting more interesting . . .

Re Mellick’s post, good point. I mean, I never thought about the lighting conditions. (Where is Groucho Marx when we really need him – providing food for (worm) thoughts (if worms think).) Actually, Mellick’s other point – isn’t risk of serious injury too subjective? – is a worthwhile question. I presume Mellick raises it because of what I have cited re risk of serious injury versus that cited by Carlson and Castle (their antidotal experience).

The answer is twofold. As I’ve stated above, as shown by its definition of deadly force (death OR serious injury) law enforcement disagrees. That is, law enforcement has already decided that one can reliably and fairly assess the risk of serious injury.

The other part of my answer requires a slight digression into criminal law. There is a fundamental legal principle that a criminal statute must give adequate notice of the conduct it proscribes; if the statute is too vague or uncertain, it is unconstitutional. The policy behind this principle is the consequence one faces for violating a criminal statute – loss of liberty. While civil law also requires a certain level of specificity, the principle is not nearly as demanding as in criminal law, for good reason. A violation of a civil statutes does not result in incarceration; generally, the only punishment is monetary. I say that because in all jurisdictions there are laws prohibiting the unlawful use of a “deadly” or “dangerous” weapon which is then defined to include devices or implements that, as used, are likely to cause death OR serious injury. In other words, all of us are expected to know, based on the likelihood of serious injury an implement presents, that using it improperly or unlawfully may be the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. So again, we have a situation where others (in this case legislative bodies that enacted the criminal statutes and the courts which upheld them) have concluded that “risk of serious injury” is not too subjective or vague.

Before anyone starts quoting me Vera Cruz, I know what Kozinski said (the author of the Vera Cruz opinion), namely you shouldn’t use a criminal law definition because such law is intended for criminals and not police officers doing their job. The point not discussed by Kozinski is the constitutional requirement of notice, described above. The “risk of serious injury” passes constitutional muster in the criminal law context even though that context imposes a more exacting and demanding requirement of notice than does civil law.

On Carlson’s post that comparing a police dog to an ordinary dog is like comparing a 357 compared to a BB gun, I absolutely agree. Isn’t that the logical conclusion one draws in reviewing a study like the one I described? But insofar as that conclusion makes the study invalid (which is Carlson’s point if I read him correctly), I disagree:

–Many handlers and trainers have claimed that a police dog, because of its training is LESS likely to cause serious injury than a comparable but untrained dog. So the LAPD study is relevant in disproving that proposition while establishing the accuracy of Carlson’s, i.e., the police dog compared to the ordinary dog (in the biting context) is like the 357 compared to the BB gun.

–Even if one entirely disregards the findings re ordinary dogs, the study is still devastating, in my opinion, for assessing the risk of serious injury. Using LAPD statistics, baton strikes have a hospitalization rate of no more than 6%, and probably a lot less. For other (conventional) weapons excluding the firearm, the hospitalization rate is even lower. Compare that to an LAPD police dog – 41%. By the way, the hospitalization rate for those struck by LAPD bullets is about 60%.

Carlson asks legitimate questions about the study’s time period, dog training methods, etc., which deserve answers. The study covered 1988, 1989 and1990. At the time, the LAPD had a “find and bite” policy. Since then (in 1992) LAPD changed to “find and bark.” None of that changes the conclusion that the police dog – when it bites – is likely to cause serious injury:

--Per their testimony, persons like Sgt. Donn Yarnall (ret.) (former LAPD trainer emeritus and co-founder of the program), Wendell Nope (hired by LAPD to evaluate its canine unit in this time period), Jared Zwickey, David Reaver, etc., all say that the training of police dogs to bite, that is, when the dog bites how it is expected to bite, has NEVER changed. This includes LAPD dogs. That is, the LAPD dogs in 1988-90 when biting are biting the same way and in the same manner that LAPD dogs bite today. The difference is that today, there are far fewer persons bitten by LAPD dogs than in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, when the LAPD “find and bark” dogs do bite, the risk of serious injury remains the same (as a 1997 published medical study out of County-USC hospital found).

I am no trainer of police dogs. If there has been a change in how dogs are expected to bite today versus how they were expected to bite 15 years ago, I would certainly like to hear it. So far, everyone I’ve deposed says the same thing. There is no difference.

Carlson also says (along with others) that the bite victim aggravates his injuries by “fighting with the dog” (not Carlson’s but someone else’s phrase) rather than becoming passive. It is certainly true that if one is able to remain motionless as a large and aggressive animal is penetrating its fangs into you, you are less likely to sustain multiple bites. Most persons, whether criminal or not, don’t have that stoic presence of mind. In short, it is inevitable that a person bitten by a large and aggressive dog will usually try to fight off the dog. It is a natural human reaction. I know because I’ve represented a number of “opps” bite victims, i.e., non-suspect civilians and police officers, bitten by police dogs. They react like the suspects – do anything to get the damn dog off.

I appreciate these posts because they have raised legitimate and thoughtful questions. I tried to answer them as objectively as I can. I know I upset many on the other side but then, to quote a cartoon character whose name I no longer remember, “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” (He was one of my favorites – does anyone remember his name?)

Finally, Cox’s statement – “Don't run or fight with the police” – captures part of the critical issue for most. To complete it, you add “you get what you deserved.”

Originally posted by Donald W. Cook:
The doctor then reviewed the medical records and determined, among other things, (a) the frequency of in-patient hospitalization (about 41%), (b) multiple bites (defined as to two or more different parts of the body) (76% of police dog bite victims had multiple bites), and (c) fatalities (1 probable fatal dog bite to a 24 year old male). The doctor then reviewed medical records of all victims of ordinary dog attacks treated over a several year period at a major LA hospital (about 1100 bite victims in all), performing the same analysis as with the police dog bite records. The result? For those bitten by ordinary dogs, 6% require in-patient hospitalization, 22% sustain multiple bites, and there was 1 fatality (small child bitten by several dogs). Moreover, unlike the police dog bite victims (almost all adult males at or near their physical prime), those seriously injured by ordinary dogs were the very young or very old. That is, persons less able to defend themselves from dog attacks. These findings are also consistent with published studies on dog bite injuries, both police and ordinary dogs.
Regarding the higher level of in-patient hospitalization with police dog bites...

While I think that comparing police K9's to pets is COMPLETELY useless when it comes to determining whether or not they are likely to cause serious bodily harm, in-patient hospitalization stats are probably one of the few numbers that could be looked at, to try to make this question a little more objective (along with maybe number of injuries that resulted in permanent damage/dissability, any stats on that?).

The problem is that there are a lot of factors outside of the severity of the bite that may contribute to in-patient hospitalization. For example, I'm much less likely to stay in the hospital overnight if I cannot miss work the next morning, not really a consideration if I am in police custody. Also, and I can't say for sure (any LEO K9 handlers read please inform me on common departmental policy) common sense would suggest that the police are going to be extra carefull about making sure their prisoners get the care that they need, and will usually err on the side of caution. And with lawyers jumping all over these cases the way they do, I'm sure those bitten by police K9's want to make everything of the injury that they can. Mr. Cook, if you are truly familiar with this study, could you tell me if they took any of these or any other factors into consideration?

Mr. Cook wrote: Regarding the study of nearly 1,000 police dog bite victims which Castle states is “highly flawed,” in what way is it flawed? Of all the objections I have heard from my opponents in these police dog bite cases, no one has ever criticized its methodology.

LC: I'll wait until I'm sitting in a witness box or you depose me to answer this question Mr. Cook. I see no reason to provide that information at this time. And you know that this simply isn't true. The few times that it's been admitted it's been shown to be flawed.

Mr. Cook wrote: Rather, the objections are that (a) its irrelevant and/or (b) its unfairly prejudicial.

LC: It's been ruled irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial so many times that it's not even worth discussing.

Mr. Cook wrote: If you don’t like getting mutilated and having your arm ripped open, then don’t trespass, commit a burglary, run from the cops, not come out when ordered,

LC: Excellent advice for your clients. I wonder why you don't give to them BEFORE they commit their crimes? But in any case this is just more of your famous rhetoric. The truth is that most dog bites (some estimates are as high as 90%) occur during training; so we have an excellent knowledge of precisely what happens.

Mr. Cook wrote: Hence, it matters not whether the dog attack was necessary in order to find the person, whether the dog attack really made it safer for the officers, and so on. The guy was a crook; let ‘er rip.

LC: That's what you want to believe but it's not the case in any trial where I've talked with the jurors after the case. They were all perfectly willing to let the facts speak for themselves and they did. You didn't do your job well enough to convince them to go your way. The "let' rip" and "they get what they deserved" attitudes are more prevalent among unscrupulous lawyers than among police officers.

Mr. Cook wrote: And by the way, when I wrote that except for the gun no police weapon is as likely to cause serious injury I thought to myself, should I add something like “except, of course, when someone uses an unorthodox weapon like a police car to run someone down.” I said nah, the reader will properly assume that I am talking about police instrumentalities designed for & traditionally used as a force instrumentality, such as baton or other impact weapon, OC spray, hogtying, tasers, control holds, etc. Well, for at least one reader I was wrong.

LC: Of course you thought of this before you wrote it Mr. Cook! LOL. When you make foolish absolute statements as you did, you should be prepared to have them thrown back in your face. A police car used as an instrumentality of force is hardly "unorthodox." It's rarely used because it's rarely called for and the circumstances don't lend itself to being deployed, but its use it taught quite commonly.

Jeff Cox wrote: I'm not a lawyer or involved in law enforcement but regarding the LAPD K-9 study: As a layman I would not expect that a bite from a pet dog and a bite from a police dog to be equal.

LC: That's because you've used common sense Jeff. Something that escapes Mr. Cook with great regularity.

Jeff Cox wrote: It seems like society keeps trying to take useful tools out of the hands of the police. K-9s, tasers, flashlights, etc all have there place.

LC: This is the task that Mr. Cook has been working at for years. He hasn't succeeded. It's good that most juries seem to have more common sense than Mr. Cook credits them with.

Alan Carlson wrote: Make no mistake, they are not victims, they are criminals.

LC: A fact that continually eludes Mr. Cook.

Mr. Cook wrote: all of us are expected to know, based on the likelihood of serious injury an implement presents, that using it improperly or unlawfully may be the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon.

LC: This is at the heart of many of Mr. Cook's lawsuits. He uses a shotgun approach and throws all sorts of theories at the juries, in the hopes that they'll buy one of them. They rarely do. One of these theories is that the handler was not properly trained. In this area (Los Angeles) it's usually Dave Reaver of Adlerhorst Kennels who makes him look foolish when he tries this approach since Dave has trained many of the dogs for local departments. But other trainers in other areas have torn this argument apart repeatedly.

LC: Another approach is that the dog was out of control. This is overcome with the use of training records and testimony. Few juries believe it.

LC: Another is that the handler wasn't properly trained. This to is refuted to the point that most juries don't believe it.

LC: For a while he approached this as a product liability situation; that the kennel owners and vendors who supplied the K-9’s were giving the handlers an animal that was defective. That was pretty much laughed at.

Mr. Cook wrote: Many handlers and trainers have claimed that a police dog, because of its training is LESS likely to cause serious injury than a comparable but untrained dog. So the LAPD study is relevant

LC: Wondering why if it's so relevant, why is it that it's so frequently dismissed as NOT being relevant by courts hearing your cases?

Mr. Cook wrote: Even if one entirely disregards the findings re ordinary dogs, the study is still devastating, in my opinion, for assessing the risk of serious injury. Using LAPD statistics, baton strikes have a hospitalization rate of no more than 6%, and probably a lot less.

LC: More BS but you'll have to wait for a trial or a depo to find out about it.

Mr. Cook wrote: None of that changes the conclusion that the police dog – when it bites – is likely to cause serious injury:

LC: This is pure bullshit. As I've already said MOST dog bites occur during training. Many of them are so inconsequential that medical treatment isn't even sought.

Mr. Cook wrote: That is, the LAPD dogs in 1988-90 when biting are biting the same way and in the same manner that LAPD dogs bite today. The difference is that today, there are far fewer persons bitten by LAPD dogs than in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

LC: That has to do with policy and procedure. It has nothing to do with how dogs are trained.

Mr. Cook wrote: It is certainly true that if one is able to remain motionless as a large and aggressive animal is penetrating its fangs into you

LC: Note the emotional rhetoric here, "penetrating it's fangs into you." ROFL. Nice try Mr. Cook. But this jury won't be swayed by your obvious attempts to emotionalize this issue.

Mr. Cook wrote: you are less likely to sustain multiple bites. Most persons, whether criminal or not, don’t have that stoic presence of mind.

LC: "most persons?" More bullshit! Since most bites occur during training "most persons" do indeed have the presence of mind to hold still. Otherwise we'd be seeing far more serious injuries at training than we do. Dave Reaver has testified before you that he's been bitten by police dogs over 1,000 times and that was nearly a decade ago!

Mr. Cook wrote: In short, it is inevitable that a person bitten by a large and aggressive dog will usually try to fight off the dog.

LC: Which is it Mr. Cook? Is it "inevitable" or do they "usually try to fight off the dog." In any case, either way, you're wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, you're wrong. USUALLY people bitten know enough to hold still. In the case of criminals they're not just trying to fight off the dog, they're fighting the entire system, in an effort to avoid arrest or escape custody. It's RARE for someone bitten to sustain serious injuries.

Mr. Cook wrote: "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

LC: Crossing the street is dangerous too; but you do what you can to minimize the danger. We use police dogs to reduce the danger to us of taking one of your (future clients) into custody. I'm wondering if you tell this to your clients?

Mr. Cook wrote: Finally, Cox’s statement – “Don't run or fight with the police” – captures part of the critical issue for most. To complete it, you add “you get what you deserved.”

LC: Notice that it's you who completes the sentence in this fashion. It's not the police who decide what happens to criminals when they're finally cornered and about to be arrested, it's the criminal. Follow the instructions of the officers, surrender and you won't be harmed. Assault an officer or refuse to surrender and you might be. You're the only one who's saying that they deserve it.

Simon Mellick wrote: While I think that comparing police K9's to pets is COMPLETELY useless when it comes to determining whether or not they are likely to cause serious bodily harm

LC: That view is shared by most of Mr. Cook's juries.

Mr. Cook, I’m glad you consider Castle and Carlson’s experience antidotal since you continue to evade the major question; what motivates you to take these cases???

I disagree with your comment,” None of that changes the conclusion that the police dog – when it bites – is likely to cause serious injury:”, when comparing find & bark dogs. In fact, if the criminal remained stationary or non-aggressive then there wouldn’t be any injury, and many find & bark dogs will disengage and return to their primary training if the criminal stops his flight or fight; another antidotal experience. Yes, the training for biting has never changed but training methods have.

You continue to use statistics to reinforce your position. I have maintained and evaluated statistics for many years; statistics tell you exactly what I want you know.

Yes, the job is dangerous, “Because criminal activities serve no legitimate
purpose, there is no reason to spare criminals from even remote consequences of
their actions; deterrence, by forcing criminals to assume responsibility for all
the harm they cause by their antisocial conduct, is the very essence of criminal
law. Law enforcement personnel, by contrast, serve important purposes; the risk
of personal liability, if taken beyond its proper scope, may make police timid
and deter activities necessary for our protection. Criminals, moreover, can
largely control the circumstances of their crimes, and can thus minimize the
risk that force will be necessary; law enforcement personnel must take the
situation as they find it. “

So...You find it enjoyable to have police officers as defendants? I do however, find it as no surprise that your relationship with police, for the most part,is very professional. Thats why we get paid the big bucks.

 Quote:

The act of biting is the same. Its a pretty simple concept. What occurs after engagement is what has changed. Training proceedure has changed in the last 15 years to keep current with ever evolving ways to improve the working dog. But I'm with Lou on this one...you gotta do your homework to figure it out. No freebie here. Happy hunting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Seems like the answer to these long (but interesting posts) lies in what my parents taught me many years ago. BEHAVE, OBEY THE COPS, AND NEVER BRING DISRESPECT TO THE FAMILY.

With that said, if someone decides to threaten the safety of society with their unlawful actions, I will personally put a 105MM Howitzer, attack lion, or any other weapon of mass destruction in the hands of police to stop them.