Jon stated ;
"The courts will never choose a training/deployment method for us. They will look at the case and decide whether or not the deployment (use of force) was reasonable and justified."


So far that's what they have done.I hope you're right and they continue to .


Jon stated ;
"Some of us carry .40's and some of us carry 9's or .45's. As long as we train and are proficient with what we have, all is good. It's all about finding who we're looking for and then going home upright and suckin' air. "

Amen. I have never heard it put better.

Howard Young responded that F/B dogs will target through crowds, etc and I don't disagree with that. Sometimes, however, service dogs face situations that don't involve clear cut targeting.

In one of my deployments, the targeted suspect rounded a corner. I deployed the dog based on the totality of circumstances. When the dog rounded the corner 40 yards later, he saw two persons running in similar fashion (a patrol officer had entered the mix). I swung wide around the corner and saw the problem. The dog had targeted the nearest running person (the officer). The dog had no ability to distinguish between the two. I was able to shut the officer down immediately. The dog, faced with a detaining situation, noticed the still fleeing suspect and re-directed. He brushed the officer's leg as he passed.

I am not saying that all F/B dogs would not have re-directed but I am saying that if my dog hadn't been very concerned about still standing persons, he would have drilled the person (officer) whom he had originally targeted.

Not a blanket statement, just one of a few situations that have convinced me that detaining dogs give us the edge, sometimes just a few seconds extra, to intervene for a successful outcome.

Additionally, I have watched the faces of my Department's Use of Force Review Board as they observed reliable detaining dogs work, and I have sat through a US 1983 federal jury trial regarding K9 use of force issues, and I can tell you without reservation that detaining service dogs will never be replaced with dogs with a bite default in my agency. There are many people who still think of the Kent State riots and nothing else when police K9 is at issue. Any training/deployment that is based on the premise of restrained force will always prevail!!!!!!

Rest assured that I understand that F/B dogs are valuable and that they can do the job. F/B dogs call off and detaining dogs over-ride. For me and mine, we will tip the scales on the side of restraint. We will detain unless the felony suspect is assaulting or fleeing. And God help them.

Jon Richey wrote: If a patrol officer finds himself between a deployed K9 and a target (fleeing suspect) and the handler directs that officer to become motionless, the K9 will have a choice. The K9 trained to detain, will choose the distant fleeing criminal and will pass the motionless officer. The find and bite dog will choose the nearest target regardless, in this case, the patrolman.

LC: I've seen this situation go both ways. I've seen find and bite K-9’s bite the stationary police officer and not chase after the fleeing suspect. And I've seen find and bark K-9’s ignore the stationary police officer and chase the fleeing suspect.

Josh Lewis wrote: Once on target and having selected the primary they stay locked on such a target regardless of other people they may or may not cross in front of or be near them. Many times we train with numerous people near, around, etc our decoys so the dogs learn to stay on the person they have been targeted to.

LC: I agree. This isn't a find and bite v. find and bark situation. This is a matter of training the dog to lock on the correct person, being able to call him off if he heads for the wrong one and training for it.

Josh Lewis wrote: The final argument that also contradicts the blanket statement about the F/B dogs is...what about a call-off? Re-directs? If you have control and see your dog go off target and go after the wrong target, call them off and re-direct them to the proper one. Not a big deal.

LC: It is to some people. They'll fight with a dog his entire career to get him to either out or to redirect.

Josh Lewis wrote: This is perhaps where I get most frustrated w/ the B/H argument. It is more people selling admins on the fact that the dog because they B/H are less liable and give the "impression" they do not bite.

LC: This is probably the worst reason to utilize a find and bark dog.

JIM NASH wrote: the dogs I work with and the magority of the K9s that work around my area are trained to see the suspect as a fighting partner.

Kevin Sheldahl wrote: The PSD must see the suspect as a fighting partner to promote the correct behavior of fighting when fought in contrast to taking down prey (where the weaker the prey is the stronger the behaviors of the predator and the more difficult to control).

LC: Jim and Kevin, both of you have used this terminology "fighting partner" and I'm not sure what it means. Can you both explain please?

Alan Carlson wrote: Unfortunately, one day the court of public opinion, an Appeals Court, maybe even the Supreme Court will make the decision for us. A decision made by those that do not have a complete understanding of K9 psychology, instincts, or drives. Affecting the most important aspect of K9 usage; olfactory senses, not just the use of teeth. Want to guess which way they go.......

LC: A law student friend of mine wrote her Law Review article on this subject. Courts all over the country have used the phrase, "properly trained police dog" when making their decisions. The definition of that animal has never been defined across the US. In each case testimony was given as to what the dog was trained to do, how he was supposed to do it and then that he, in fact, did just that. She felt that sooner or later they're going to, as Alan says, decide to force upon us a definition of the "properly trained police dog." I have little doubt that they'll go with the IACP model (find and bark) even though there's no expertise or experience with dogs in that group.

Jon Richey wrote: The courts will never choose a training/deployment method for us. They will look at the case and decide whether or not the deployment (use of force) was reasonable and justified.

LC: I hope not, but that's not the trend in the courts. More and more they're becoming "law makers" instead of interpreting existing laws.

I have a different angle, with out re-opening the whole debate and tackling every point-point by point, I think a lot of people are missing the –“ main goal” of a PSD or have I got the wrong end of the stick, I was always told that the main idea is to ARREST – catch - hold , and not / never fight with the” PARTNER”, but to keep him motionless or stop him Yes /NO? if so, why do we go down that road we are confusing training issues and talk with real life applications.

So once the dog targets the wrong person for what ever reason you must as a qualified handler at least be able to call off, and re direct, if you can not do this you can not call your self a handler.

To me this is the crux of the matter, the rest of it is just futile arguments and points that have no or little bearing on the main purpose of the dog as utilised, it is irrelevant detail, weather he is trained in find and bark or bark and hold it looks the same when you role it out on the street with a “fighting partner’ there is no elegant pause both dogs go in straight for the “Arrest”

Very insightful. You can argue the point all day and still end up disagreeing. Ive had to recall my dogs an a few occasions where he targeted the wrong person. So far no accidental bites. I look at the dog as a piece of equipment(so does my agency), If a guy runs and I have to use my asp, mace, taser or whatever, I will stop when he gives up. I feel the same way about using the dog. If he runs he gets bit. If he gives up prior to the bite, he doesnt get bit. If he continues to fight, he gets bit and possibly maced, tased or whatever as well. As long as you have control over your partner it doesnt matter what apprehension method you prefer. Cant we all just get along?

Lou Castle wrote:
"LC: Jim and Kevin, both of you have used this terminology "fighting partner" and I'm not sure what it means. Can you both explain please? "

I was responding to Kevin when I used the terminology "fighting partner" since that is what he uses and I feel it is a good example of what I'm seeing when a dog is properly trained or selected .

I usually describe it as the dog wants(drive) to go in and engage(fight)the suspect even knowing that the suspect has the capability to harm him/her and the dog is doing this with the confidence he/she will win . The dog must automatically kick into to fight drive when going into situations he has learned there may be a good chance of a fight ( command to bite , locating suspect at end of search , handler is attacked by suspect , handler comfronts suspect displaying actions or in similar situation dog has learned may mean a fight , etc.) The dog should feel it is one of his roles in working with it's handler to fight the suspect and feel suspect is catalyst to fulfilling it's role.


Reinier Geel wrote;
Ihave a different angle, with out re-opening the whole debate and tackling every point-point by point, I think a lot of people are missing the –“ main goal” of a PSD or have I got the wrong end of the stick, I was always told that the main idea is to ARREST – catch - hold , and not / never fight with the” PARTNER”, but to keep him motionless or stop him Yes /NO? if so, why do we go down that road we are confusing training issues and talk with real life applications.


Reinier , this was discussed as a training method (ie; using a dog with a high fight drive and training in a way that utilizes that drive ) as a way of reaching that "main goal" of catching and holding the suspect in the best way possible in a real life situation.

The dog can still see the suspect as a "fighting partner" and still be under control. Meaning it won't go straight in for the "arrest" if you train to have your dog under control containing his desire(fight drive) or view of the suspect as a fighting partner . This last statement may seem confusing but what I mean by this is you use his fight drive as a tool to increase the dogs desire to locate or confront the suspect then at this point you train the dog to contain that desire to fight if you need to in a Bark and Hold as long as the suspect's actions don't require the dog to go in and fight. The dog through training will know his job is to bark at the suspect but still be prepared or be in fight drive , to fulfill his desire to fight if the suspect runs or fights or if the handler commands it .

The difference with the Bite and Hold dog is he is allowed to go in and fulfill his desire if the suspect is located where the dog can get to him. If the suspect isn't within reach the dog through proper training knows it's supposed to bark at the suspects location.

Most of the dogs I train with go in with a firm confident bite and maintain it but the suspect also plays a role in this depending on how hard or if he fights back. You can throw control anywhere in these situations through good training.

That's been my point from the begining . As long as we choose the right dogs ,train and deploy properly it should not matter if it's Bark and Hold or Bite and Hold . Police departments all have a certain unique set of reasons on why one method may be better or safer than another for them . One method alone is not the answer to every departments problems.

Jon Richey wrote:
"I am not saying that all F/B dogs would not have re-directed but I am saying that if my dog hadn't been very concerned about still standing persons, he would have drilled the person (officer) whom he had originally targeted."


Jon , What do you mean by "very concerned about still standing persons " ?

I have not read the entire thread, rather bits and pieces so if I am blind as to my comments, or repeating another's comments forgive me.

Through Utah POST the dogs are certified as both B&H as well as F&B, as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) which presents my question.......why does it have to be one or the other? It seems to me both have their place. I realize the argument that a dog is more apt to bite in the end regardless of training because of their innate drives and desires....I also understand the opposite argument...

Why not both?

Jim:

When I teach detaining, I teach my dog that still standing persons can be dangerous. The dog understands that he is confronting a worthy opponent but that by challenging the opponent correctly, he will always prevail.

This is not "begging for a bite" detaining, the dog knows (as do we all) that he can be hurt if he rushes in on a stronghold position.

Consider it in terms of nature. If a dog chases a cat (prey drive) or an equal dog (fight drive), and the other animal turns to ward off the attacker (usually because it's cornered), The chasing animal will very likely respect the stronghold position by stopping short and by trying to flush the opponent with a show of aggressive behavior.

In terms of this discussion, if the dog, working alone (due to the distance he has put between himself and his handler), encounters two potential targets--all things equal, he will engage the one that he has easiest access to. If that easiest target becomes motionless, the dog will re-direct by himself to the fleeing target due to the respect he has for the motionless or relatively motionless "opponent".

Now, having said that, I'm sure there are those who believe that the dog can remember his first target in spite of dynamic circumstances. Sometimes they do. My experience (30 street bites/Zero unintentional bites) has been that the detaining dog will normally target the person in active flight. He will pass the motionless person for the fleeing person and, worst case scenario, he will detain the motionless person if the original target is not in sight.