Quote:

Originally posted by Donald W. Cook:
I don't have numbers. I'll ask the doctor though if he could or did determine the frequency of permanent injuries. It certainly would be worthwhile to know the frequency of these kinds of long term or permanent injuries.

How many of these cases have you taken, and NOW you're going to ask the doctor if he "did determine the frequency of permanent injuries"?

I didn't worry about critiquing you, as others have refrained from, because I thought, What could some 21 year old Canadian with 2 years of college give you that you didn't already have? Seems I ought to embrace the party line and shut the f*** up.

And a final note regarding the 6% in-patient hospitalization number with batons compared to K9 bites...

As the LEO's have stated, there are differences in how the K9's are trained, and more importantly deployed compared to 10 years ago. It is now common practice to train tracking dogs to use batons, management is just waiting on the impact weapons licenses. I know, why would you train a dog to use a baton? The first experiments involved sending disbarred lawyers in after barricaded suspects, but they couldn't concentrate, just kept sniffing everybody's @$$ trying to find a bleeder...

Fortunately litigators such as Mr. Cook are limited in their courtroom strengths by the juries they speak to. Hopefully that jury is comprised of logically thinking individuals that will dispense justice.

Mr. Cook wrote: One of the reasons for having a doctor review these records was to verify that yes, the dog bite injuries caused the hospitalization versus some other factor (pre-existing condition, etc.). So the 41% is based on hospitalization as necessitated by dog bite injuries.

LC: It's interesting that in all that you've written here, only the doctors and experts that you hire agree with you. Those hired by defense attorneys or those experts who testify for free almost universally disagree with your conclusions drawn from these statistical studies. There's a common saying that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics. The last can be interpreted in many ways. You're habit of making the statements as fact merely shows that you're intentionally trying to mislead this group just as you do with juries. Rarely works there, won't work here.

Mr. Cook wrote: He (referring to me) seems to be very emotional and unwilling to engage in reasoned debate.

LC: No need to Mr. Cook. As I said I see no reason to help you prepare for your next assault on law enforcement.

Mr. Cook wrote: So unlike Mellick, Castle is unwilling to critique or question what I’ve said.

LC: I'm perfectly willing to show you the holes in your theories at the right time and place. This isn't it.

Mr. Cook wrote: I do find Castle’s comments that because most dog bites occur in training (a true statement) which rarely results in serious injury (another true statement) one can correctly conclude that dog attacks in the field are not likely to cause serious injury, humorous. Last time I checked in training you guys wear protective gear – bite sleeves, bite suits, etc.

LC: Don't be stupid Mr. Cook, it's unbecoming. The bites that I'm talking about are training accidents, not bites on equipment. They occur when a dog misses or avoids the equipment and bites the decoy, not when he bites the protective gear. The fact remains, MOST bites (on skin, not equipment) inflicted by police dogs occur during training, not on the street, during the apprehension of suspects. And FEW of them result in hospitalization. You've been told this numerous times by Dave Reaver and others but you choose not to hear it. It doesn't fit into your view of the world. Quite convenient I think. The serious injuries you see are mainly as a result of your clients' struggles to avoid and evade capture, nothing more.

Mr. Cook wrote: From my perspective the word went out from the upper management to the dog handlers to stop the biting. Presto, the biting pretty much stopped

LC: Your perspective is quite myopic. To say that the "biting has pretty much stopped" is to tell a lie. Whether a police dog bites or not is up to the suspects. Surrender when ordered to do so and the chances of being bitten drop to zero. The officers and supervisors realized that it was safer for all concerned, the handlers, the K-9's, the search team and the suspects that no bite occurred. That's what slowed the rate of biting, not anything from upper management.

Mr. Cook wrote: As a final comment, I notice no one has disputed what I’ve said in my first post, to wit: law enforcement defines deadly force to include force likely to cause serious injury. It thus appears we can at least all agree on the definition.

LC: Law enforcement "defines deadly force to include . . . " because that's what the courts have forced on us. I'll disagree with that definition. I think it's overly broad, vague and ambiguous. No one knows what "force likely to cause" is and even fewer know what "serious injury" is. Death can result from the slightest scratch if it gets infected and is not treated. Is anyone going to call a scratch, "deadly force?" That being said, I'm forced to accept the court's definition, but I still think it's wrong.

Mr. Cook wrote: And oh, my comment about the “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it” wasn’t meant to apply to persons signing up for police work; it was a joke meant to apply to me, writing these posts as a lawyer representing victims of police dog attacks and as a result, from time to time having some police officer threaten my life.

LC: Just how many attacks on your life have there been Mr. Cook? I think that you've greatly overestimated you own importance.

Lou, Excellent post. How dare you refute his panderings or confuse this issue with facts though.

DFrost

Thanks for the kind words David. Mr. Cook is quite entertaining to watch in trial. At one trial that I watched he had Dave Reaver of Adlerhorst Kennels on the stand.

Mr. Cook asked a question that Dave answered and then Dave said (All quotes are to the effect) "And the answer to your next question is . . . " and he gave Mr. Cook's next question and his answer to it.

Of course Mr. Cook objected. he said, "Your honor he has no idea of what my next question is going to be."

The judge turned towards Dave and said, "Mr. Reaver please wait for him to ask the question. You really don't know what he's going to say."

Dave responded, "Your honor I know exactly what he's going to ask me next. We've had this exact same line of questioning every time I've testified with Mr. Cook. He asks the exact same questions in the exact same order every time."

The judge said, "That may be so Mr. Reaver, but please wait for him to ask the question before you answer it."

Can you guess what Mr. Cook's next question was? It was exactly, WORD FOR WORD what Dave had said it would be! Dave held his hands up while everyone in court, including the jury, the court watchers, the defense team and the defendant laughed out loud. The judge was seen biting his lip to keep from laughing at Mr. Cook.

That jury took less than an hour to find against Mr. Cook's client.

Not so fast Mr. Cook. Call me crazy but, I cant just let you slither out yet. You accuse myself and Mr. Mellick of "mere posturing". How can you make that statement when you, yourself openly admit you know squat about dog training. I agree with Yarnall, Nope, Zwickey etc. in reference to the fact that in the last 15 years No changes have been made in how Dogs are trained to BITE. I never disputed that. Again, simple concept, but you fail to think outside the box that is why you are so confused. And because you know squat about dog training, you dont have a clue as to what questions need to be asked to get your point across to juries, as evidence from Lou's post regarding Dave Reaver making you look like a fool in court. Your poor attempt at baiting me here is wasted time and keystrokes better spent on doing some research. Still no freebie...Now I'm done.

Actually, no, what Frost meant to say, was exactly what he wrote. I didn't get particularly involved in this discussion because you have a motive. What it is I'm not sure. I am reasonably certain however, it's not to defend the down-trodden. Like you, I prefer it when a trier of fact makes the decisions. For my part, I'm just glad it's not in California State Courts or the 9th Circus.

DFrost

Hey Guys - have any of you considered that Donald Cook is just trolling for ideas on how to beat you in court. To my knowledge Cook and Mann have never won a K9 case. Maybe Mr Cook is using the board as a form of Basic Training.

Just food for thought here.