Lance,

The last thing I'm going to do is engage in an argument/debate over whether civilians can, or should train a PSD. Been in too many already and they just aren't worth the time or effort.

Like you said, we both have our beliefs and we will both stick to them. No big deal, thats life. But, bad or misguided information on the Police section of this board is not well received by pretty much all the cops who post here, and especially not by the owner of this board. I feel a lightning bolt coming...

Howard

Just for the heck of it, I did a little research. As I expected, CA does have a "one bite" law, so to speak. It is in reference to pets, privately owned animals. Law enforcement and military is exempt. Information can be found at this web address.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/civil.htm

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

Just for the heck of it, I did a little research. As I expected, CA does have a "one bite" law, so to speak. It is in reference to pets, privately owned animals. Law enforcement and military is exempt. Information can be found at this web address.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/civil.htm

DFrost

That "one bite" law, I couldn't even imagine it being extended to LE and military - thank goodness that's not the case. That would stupid, stupid, stupid.

Regarding FB, that seems to be most realistic in apprehending for LE and military, a lot more realistic than BH. I've never been really comfortable with seeing the BH in SchH (I also have never been thrilled that in SchH, the decoy seems always to be in the last blind searched - there should be some surprises for the dog). Wasn't sure why I wasn't a fan of BH, now I know. I'm sure it may have it's benefits but it seems more to be for sport than possible life and death situations for cops and their K9s.

Which brings me to another question. Do you think the BH became part of some PD's course of action because it was popularized in SchH? If SchH made it popular (I don't know), I would assume it's because there isn't any real danger to the handler from the decoy, and the decoy doesn't especially want to put his life in danger from the dog (although I know it's quite risky to be a decoy).

Guess I'm asking about the history of BH - where it originated and why.

Oh, and do you think a PPD should use FB or BH or a combo of both, since a civilian would be the handler? It could take a few minutes for the cops to come. Should a PPD be biting the whole time, or released by the handler?

Edited by Sandy Moore (06/18/2007 10:02 AM)
Edit reason: to add a question

Most leos I have known would much rather have four puncture wounds (ie one bite) on a subject going into court than 40.

 Quote: Luke Charlton

Most leos I have known would much rather have four puncture wounds (ie one bite) on a subject going into court than 40.

I wouldn't argue with that statement. Most officer would prefer to never use more force than is necessary. In reality, more than four puncture wounds can happen.

DFrost

Certainly David, I was pointing out that in an ideal situation the perp would be in a clearing the dog would make one bite the subject restrained and everyone goes home. Obviously it doesn't usually go down that way.

Which brings me to another question. Do you think the BH became part of some PD's course of action because it was popularized in SchH? If SchH made it popular (I don't know), I would assume it's because there isn't any real danger to the handler from the decoy, and the decoy doesn't especially want to put his life in danger from the dog (although I know it's quite risky to be a decoy).

I believe that certainly had some bearing on it, although there are more reasons. On the basis of it, it sounds like a sensible thing to do. It's grounded in the philosophy of "only that force that is necessary is used". When a suspect stops resisting, the dog stops biting and gaurds the subject. As I said, on the premise, it's a logical thing to do. In practice, studies have shown there are more "accidental" or unwanted bites using the b/h than the f/b. When you watch training it all works fairly good. Training does not always replicate training.


DFrost

 Quote: Luke Charlton

I was pointing out that in an ideal situation the perp would be in a clearing the dog would make one bite the subject restrained and everyone goes home. Obviously it doesn't usually go down that way.

Which is why it's so important to document each time the dog is used and NO bite was necessary. Most departments that keep that documentation will show the bite is used very little.

DFrost

Also, the DOJ (Department Of Justice) will be all over you if the bite ratio exceeds a certain percentage over the working life of the dog. It can't be done annualy or even semi-annual because sometimes a cop will have very active years where there are a lot of useages which end in physical apprehension.

Don't ask for the percentage. I'm keeping mum on that.

I suspect another reason for the BH is to show absolute control of the dog. As David says..it usually comes back to bite you. At least with a FB dog what you see is what you get.

A couple years ago I had to track a suicidal suspect that had active warrants among other charges. When the dog pulled him out of the ditch by his ass I asked the guy why he didn't give up when he saw us coming. He said he was going to give up when the dog started barking at him (BH) and he also hoped we wouldn't find him. I told him the city to our south has dogs that bark on the find but ours dont. His reply was "That really sucks"

Howard

Howard

 Quote: david c.frost

Which brings me to another question. Do you think the BH became part of some PD's course of action because it was popularized in SchH? If SchH made it popular (I don't know), I would assume it's because there isn't any real danger to the handler from the decoy, and the decoy doesn't especially want to put his life in danger from the dog (although I know it's quite risky to be a decoy).

I believe that certainly had some bearing on it, although there are more reasons. On the basis of it, it sounds like a sensible thing to do. It's grounded in the philosophy of "only that force that is necessary is used". When a suspect stops resisting, the dog stops biting and gaurds the subject. As I said, on the premise, it's a logical thing to do. In practice, studies have shown there are more "accidental" or unwanted bites using the b/h than the f/b. When you watch training it all works fairly good. Training does not always replicate training. I know I quoted my own post, but the last line in the original post just did not make sense. Of course it was meant to read: Training does not always replicate reality.


DFrost