We Want Yellow!
Donate Today Monthly if Possible
Posted on 08/10/2011 8:14:26 PM PDT by BBell
Thanks.
I thought that one was just gonna lay there....”unopened”.
LOL
Beats me but I -know- no LEO dog training protocol teaches them to go for that area.
All bite-work is focused on the arms or legs.
The whole point is for the dog to seize and *hold* the perp until the handler arrives to restrain said perp.
K9 training is basically just Schutzhund training.
No Schutzhund trial would ever allow that kind of bite.
It’s just not done.
I would postulate that either the guy, for whatever reason, had his hands near his crotch *or* took a kick at the dog and the dog’s bite went astray.
Dogs do not “go for the crotch” in a natural state and it’s actually rather hard to train them to do so.
Their nature is to bite the throat or limbs.
It’s modified hunting/predator behavior.
Grabbing your prey in the crotch leaves you open to a kick in the head.
It simply makes no sense in canine terms.
“To get a gun perhaps?”
Possibly, but the implication (in the second version of the police officer’s story, mind you), is that he was trying to flee, when there was no egress in that direction.
“The rest are speculative (ie you don’t know if it was trained to bite on the crotch, they may not have checked for a warrant, etc)”
I wouldn’t call them speculations, I would call them inferences. Police dogs are trained on how to subdue a subject, and they attack only when commanded by their handlers. They are not wild or untrained animals that up and bite crotches of their own volition. If they do, they are not properly trained and shouldn’t be “on the job”.
Similarly, it’s standard procedure to check for warrants during a traffic stop, so it’s not speculation to ask why the warrant wasn’t noticed then. If the officers did not check for warrants, then they were not following procedure during the stop, which leads to even more questions.
“when there was no egress in that direction.”
And how did the cop know that?
That dog has obviously been huffing whipped cream...
I think the point is that the suspect would have known that. Why would he run towards a wall?
Grapes and raisins are poisonous to dogs!
Grapes and Dogs: A Killer Combination
"It is unknown exactly what component of grapes is toxic to dogs, but dogs that ingest grapes or raisins are at risk of acute renal (kidney) failure, which is fatal."
I love *smart* FReeper posts, and I love them even better if they are dog related! A twofer! :) (and they are even better if I *get* them, so maybe this is a triple play!)
What a good idea!
But think about how your dogs feel when you remove their generous gifts from your person! :)
that certainly may be...experts will evaluate the situation and decide......there are very few errors made in these situations....very few indeed. I know of what I speak!
wrong again Kemosabe. he attacks only those whom he is ordered to attack and under most circumstances, they are somehow resisting arrest. Are some innocent, perhaps, but their behavior at the time lends one to believe thay they are not. One alternative to sending the dog to stop their behavior is a handgun.....I'd rather have the officer make a mistake with the dog than with the gun. Bottom line, if you find yourself in that position, shut the hell up, put your hands in the air, and let your attorney sort it out.
oh please, lets not go back to Clinton.....an error is a mistake, a miscalculation, a gaffe, poor judgement, whatever.....a situation, in this case, is a confrontation between the police and a possible criminal.
“under most circumstances”
Ah, isn’t that the key phrase though? Under most circumstances, the dog will only be ordered to attack someone who is resisting or fleeing, but this whole thread is mostly a discussion about whether or not this was one of those circumstances. There is certainly plenty of information in the article that, if it turns out to be true, points to the fact that we are not talking about “most circumstances”.
Now, nothing I said is not factual. The suspects are still innocent until proven guilty, even if the police witness them committing a crime like resisting arrest. That doesn’t mean that the police have to play pattycake with suspects, but it does mean that we shouldn’t assume that the guy who was attacked is automatically an “idiot” on the “wrong side of the law”.
“And how did the cop know that?”
He obviously didn’t, and that is my point. The cop appears, when he wrote his second version of the story, to have made a big mistake. He claimed the suspect was trying to flee out the rear of the apartment, but it seems that he didn’t realize there was no way the suspect could flee in that direction. To me, it sounds like the officer was just making up a story after the fact to cover himself, and did not check his facts.
Of course, if you are the type of person who believes that police never falsify reports to cover-up their own misconduct, then I guess that you would think that is a completely implausible conclusion. I am not that type of person.
LOL
“he didn’t realize there was no way the suspect could flee in that direction. “
Hold on. You believe it was physically impossible for him to run in that direction?
Clinton invented the dictionary?
I asked to see if you were playing with words.
So, there's rarely an error when a cop uses his dog? Is that what you are saying?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.