The Pedigree Database: German Shepherd dog

I read an article in yesterdays paper that really bothered me and thought it would raise some good discussion.

Officers responded to a call of shots fired; long story short they asked the suspect to show his hands, he did so and brandished a gun, they made several requests for him to drop the weapon and when he did not do so they sent the dog to subdue him.  In the meantime the suspect began firing shots at the dog killing him dead and his handler opened fire on the suspect fatally wounding him.  The family of the suspect made a statement to the paper they felt the officer killed their son, then killed his own dog and planted a weapon on the suspect to coroborate their story.  How ridiculous does that sound??lol  Then they proceed to state "Is a dogs life worth more than human life?"  This is when I started to get a little upset because that dog lost his own life in order for his handler to keep his; he did what he was told to do, with courage and loyalty.  Although I feel for a family's loss of a child regardless of the circumstances I can't begin to imagine the way that handler feels today having to goto work without his partner/friend and reliving the day he had to see him get shot down giving his life for him.  Considering the suspect was no stranger to criminal history, which by the way was previously convicted of a weapons charge; the family tries to paint him out to be this upstanding law abiding, minding his own business type of guy.

Then another article was written interviewing the President of the PA Police K9 Assoc. where he contradicts himself by stating if he knew the guy had a gun he would not deploy the dog, but then says he'd of probably did what the officer did given the same situation. He states he was trained that if the guy is armed not to deploy the dog and goes to say "what you're basically doing is selling the dog out".  Why I ask would it be "selling him out"?  This isn't a game you set up to guarantee the dog a win every time, this is the real deal where your "win" is you get to go home with your partner ALIVE.

I wondered what other people's thoughts are on this?  I was always under the understanding a police k9 gets deployed just before deadly force has been used.  In this situation wouldn't a suspect brandishing a gun, refusing to comply with officers requests fall under that same criteria?  How much more "before deadly force" would have been needed??

The article also quotes stating police k9's are "expendable" to their handlers; something happens to the dog they just go get another to replace it.  Is that REALLY how it is??  Maybe I'm too much of a "softie" but comments like that really blow me away as I have such a deep bond with my dogs I can't imagine ever considering them "expendable".

The K9 will have a special place at the rainbow bridge for doing his job with courage.  I feel so sorry for the handler, he lost a partner and a friend.

A person with the history of the "suspect" is not a child and I hate it when the media portrays them as such.   It almost has the feel of suicide by cop.

It makes me want to vomit when I hear again and again what supposed 'angels' these gun-toting teenagers are!

In a similar case posted awhile back on the PDB, involving a youth that was high on drugs, I believe the dog was killed by 'friendly fire'. It looked like the police officers opened fire BEFORE the young man went for his gun. Then one of the posters on the board who was a LEO or former LEO said the sound on the video had been deliberately done out of synch, to make it look like the police were at fault for prematurely opening fire, when in actual fact, they waited until the perp went for his gun. .

At the end of the video, you can hear the dog's handler being very, very upset over the loss of his dog.

We have had this sort of discussion before on the board, and if I remember correctly, those familiar with K9 training said a dog is far too valuable a resource to be put at risk needlessly. In other words, you don't have your dog go charging at a drawn gun, unless it's necessary to save the lives of the police officers. 

If I were an LEO I personally would have a difficult time sending my dog into that situation (gunman in waiting).  Unless the perp's attention was in another direction and there was a good chance for a surprise dog hit. 

But as I've been told when I've questioned this exact situation before, we weren't there involved in the situation, so it would be unfair to critisize the K9 handler's split descision in the midst of chaos.  He has suffered greatly because of it and I'm sure dwells on the incident and descision he made.

Hearing what the family said really pisses me off.  They should be GREATFUL they officers gave him the opportunity to be apprehended by a non lethal force (K9) instead of just shooting him dead on the spot (which it sounds to me like they would have been justified doing).

I think the OP should have posted the whole story ...

Gimme a break. Old enough to illegally carry a gun? Old enough to die by one. Ths country is going to sh!t. The criminals have more rights than the victims.

i think when someone is holding a gun and planning to shoot you,is a right time not to send yourself and your kids or your dog,does not matter how much trainig you have.it is very very sad that this officer lost his partner.and Blitzen i am with you on this one.thanx.

Yeah the country is going to shit, as well as the rest of the world.   I dont care who, or how old, or why, once you hold the weapon you enter a world with rules as old as time.   Someone else will sort it out after its done.

Here's the article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08128/879705-85.stm

The denial in this world also amazes me.  Not my kid!

It's so hard to make a call without being there to see.  Amazing as it may be (LOL!) I have an opinion about this.

I think the K9 officer was in error.  I don't think the dog should have been deployed if the suspect was armed - instead, I think the officer should have FIRST called for backup, then continued to demand the suspect surrender the weapon AND submit (ie; facedown, spread arms, legs, etc).  Not having been there, it's sooooo difficult to tell how fast each segment of this event happened. 

I might be wrong, but I think many departments have a SOP on this very subject. "Sacrificing" the dog isn't part of SOP that I know about.  We also need to consider this aspect:

An armed man (I'm just going to assume he was over the age of 12 and able to understand he was being ordered to surrender the weapon) - is confronted by a cop with a gun, and ORDERED to surrender the weapon and himself.  Even without a dog present, the armed man really has only two choices:  submit or fight.  From this description, the criminal CHOSE to escalate by NOT submitting.

Kill him. No cop in the world should endanger his own life when a suspect refuses to drop a weapon.

Steve    

Wow!  I just read the newspaper article .....

This wasn't a "kid" - he was a 19 year old with a criminal background.  Thoughts:

Where's the ironclad guarantee the "kid" wasn't going to kill the cop?

What's the bullshit about "shooting the kid in the LEG"???  THAT'S gotta be the sickest news report I ever read!  Getting shot in the leg will guarantee that the kid will surrender?  Yeah, right.  Unless he shoots the COP in the head??

Newspapers are some of the world's best evidence of pure stupidity.

Steve

Like it has been said before, tough to make a call if you are not there.  How about this that no one has mentioned.  Why not put a vest on a K9?  Cost Cost Cost!  How much is your partners life worth?  This is all monday morning quarterbacking.  It only takes a minute to put a vest on the dog, he does not have to wear it for the whole tour.  These scenarios are case by case basis.  Better to lose a 4 legged partner than one with 2 leggs.

Kyle

They discussed the vest issue on the news the other night.  They said they have vests but only use them when they are knowingly taking a dog into a situation where shootings are likely.  The vests weigh 15 lbs. and are not only cumbersome but make the dogs too hot to wear continually.  Evidently this situation erupted quickly and there was no time to make sure the dog was protected by a vest.

I have known a number of canine officers and customs officers.  In my experience, their dogs are their partners as much as a human partner and they are certainly not considered "expendible."  When their canine partner takes a hit or dies in the line of duty, it is as an arrow piercing the heart and the sorrow for a fallen partner.  No less.

In illustration, I recall when I worked at a large vet clinic and we had a big mother of a black guy come in with his Dobie.  The dog was a customs detector and he was a customs officer.  This was a very muscle bound guy with a pretty fierce dog.  But we knew another side of this pair.  When the dog was brought to the clinic, the handler, every time spoke to him like someone's little grandmother.  He was not ashamed of his great affection for this dog.

When the dog was diagnosed with Wobblers, the guy broke down in tears and all vists after that were a great sadness for us all and the animal was eventually put down.  No sorrow could be greater than the man's love for his dog.  Job dog or not!

All I can say is that I would NEVER EVER send my partner after an armed gunman, whether it was to save me or not.

Emily.

 As much as some of you may want us to, we can not shoot someone just because they have a gun. There must be an "immediate threat of great bodily harm or death" I can't begin to explain it here so for the sake of simplicity----

the guy would have to level the gun, attempt to enter a building likely to cause a hostage situation, or actualy shooting, to be considered an "immediate threat". Might seem crazy to you but that's the way it is in my neck of the woods.

From a tactical standpoint the deployment of the dog was exactly what he should have done (from the description of the scenario). He saw a gun, suspect refused to show hands, in an open public area. He can't shoot him, he can't let him run away, your not going to try and go hands on with someone you know has a gun. The dog was the correct option to use. Really the only option.

Three weeks ago I was in a very similar situation. Drive by shooting with injury, 100 MPH pursuit. I was positioning to assist when the suspect car crashed right in front of me. Foot pursuit on one of the suspects, rounded a corner and he was trying to jump a fence. I took him down at gunpoint. Had I had a dog, I would have used it. If the kid (15 by the way with his 13 year old brother and another 15 yr old) would have pointed a gun or tried to get in the front door of that house...............

AS for the use of a dog on a known armed suspect. There is a huge difference between a place open to the public and a barricaded suspect. There are many more option available. in a barricade scenario. I personally would not send my dog in on an armed barricaded suspect unless I was given a direct order. In the end though the dog is a tool. If it comes down to officer or dog, the dog has to go in first. 

P.S. 

 In CA, today is Peace Officer's Memorial Day in memory of all officers in California who have been killed in the line of duty.

"In CA, today is Peace Officer's Memorial Day in memory of all officers in California who have been killed in the line of duty."

God's blessing and care to all who have died in the line of duty, both human and canine.  They are our Heros and they are the keepers of our peace.  They honour our humanity.  They keep our trust.  They deserve to be remembered.

Thanks GARD for shedding some light on the situation.  I can understand from one perspective why not sending the dog is stated but I too tried to come up with one other viable alternative that the officer had at that particular moment given the circumstances; I could not think of anything else he could have done.  He couldn't fire his weapon because at that moment the suspect had not fired any shots at the officer or anyone else; how was he to know that the suspect would turn around and shoot the dog dead???  The whole things blows my mind actually that it went down that way.  What really did the suspect think he'd accomplish by shooting the dog???  He'd flee??  It's my understanding that once the initial shot gets fired at an officer or at all for that matter all bets are off and the officer has the right to discharge his weapon.  Is this correct?  If so, then shooting the dog was also signing off his own death certificate.

For anyone who did not read the article the dog was a 6yr old GSD.  They are planning a huge ceremony for him tomorrow I believe where he will be laid to rest in the cemetary with full honors.

Steve- Yes it's mind blowing when you hear assinine comments like "why couldn't he shoot em in the leg?"  I suposse the suspect aims to shoot at legs to right??  People never cease to amaze me anymore!  That boys mother should have slapped the hell out of that child lonnnnnnnnnggg ago when he was young robbing, fighting, carrying weapons and now she wants to play the "blame game" on the cop....

A little bit of a different note but,,,,,after my sar partner died (i still believe world trade center related) i had a peta person call me to tell me I killed my dog.

I took a big gulp and then quietly and politely asked her if she had children. she replied, a 19 year old and a 22 year old. I then returned with " if one of then was trapped or missing in the rubble would you as a mother not want to ulilize all available means, including a dog? She abruptly hung up.

A day does not go by that I do not miss my Anna, no matter how great my current partners are.

Thank you Wanderer

http://www.kcra.com/video/16216181/index.html

k9sar-  Unbelievable that person was.  The GALL....I think you responded much more "respectfully" than that person deserved. 

Normal, I love that word................... Armed yes, organizing might also be a plus.   Just dont let too many know.

Burn it all down.............. Hi Ugly.

From the article:  "They killed my son execution-style, not in the leg,"

Oh, good grief...

Every law enforcement group I've ever known and worked with, (including military personel like myself), has been trained to shoot for core body mass. Once shooting has commenced, it's considered deadly force, and the aim is to stop the perp as quick as possible so no one (including bystanders) gets hurt. Core mass is the quickest way to stop someone.

Those movie-style "subdual shots" just aren't done in real life. 

Maybe Mommy Dearest should have kept Sweet Sonny Boy off the streets and at home where she could dote on him. I wonder where she was for the rest of his life.

Except criminals know about body armor and that makes your groin and head a better shot.   Its not hard to hit a six inch circle if you practice enough, even under presure.

http://kdka.com/video/?id=41161@kdka.dayport.com

Thank you GARD, I'm glad there was a nice report done that could be shared.

In Washington people can get special license plates supporting the Law Enforcement Memorial.  I think they are $35 per year extra.   Next renewel I am getting them.

4pack, thanks for posting that.  

GARD - well said. i regret to say i had no idea about the memorial day. i've been so busy with "stuff" that i've watched no news and read no papers. god bless them all.

4 PACK - thanks for posting the video. angus turns 2 on may 15 (ulf's birthday) and i'll be just that more grateful that i have him safe ans sound.

condolences to ulf's partner and family.

It is terrible, but that kid did get what he deserved.  When you go out and get a gun and want to play with the big boys you are entering into a whole new realm.  That 18 made the choice to do what he did, and because of that he suffered the conseqences.