K-9 tragedy.... this really pisses me off!

I hated to see this. I have a lot of admiration for those dogs and it fascinates me watching them work.

Let's also use this as a reminder to keep our guns on our person or locked away so criminals can't steal them easily. With so many new gun owners in the last few years stolen guns from cars, locked and unlocked, are happening everyday in my area.

 

RIP Officer Figo. And now your watch is ended

These dogs give everything and then some.

 

That's a worthy cause to donate to for sure. How is it these officers don't have protective vests as it stands now?

 

Now THAT is a happy ending

Thanks for doing him that honor.

 

@ColoradoTJ

So, I'll chime in on this since it's something that comes up quite frequently….

First, let's look at coverage (that a vest provides) in relation to the angle of approach/attack (when a dog is engaging a human) and the likely angle of attack a violent offender would use to subdue a pursuing dog or one that's already engaged. The vest wraps the body and will generally have a panel (or yoke) that comes down the front of the dog (below the neck line) would cover part of the chest as it connects to the 'wrap' near the belly. What it doesn't cover is the head, neck, shoulders, legs and hind quarters. The lack of coverage at the head and neck create an obvious issue. The exposed shoulder area (if a shot is taken from the front or a side angle) is a direct route to the major internal organs (any hunter knows that if you blow the area out of an animal that is just rear of the shoulder you're damaging major organs). So, if we look at the area of coverage (or lack thereof) in relation to the angle of approach when a dog is either pursuing or engaging a suspect, common sense says that the dog will be head on to the suspect. When a person attempts to deploy deadly force against a pursuing dog, more than 90% of the time, it is done "head on"; and the dog is either shot in the head, neck or shoulder area. All areas of the dog that are not covered.

Second, let's look at blunt force trauma vs. puncture, rip or tear type wounds in animals. The most common handgun round used by a suspect is a 9mm, which has up 400ftlbs of energy as it leaves the muzzle. Most gunfights between suspects and K9s occur during contact or in an extremely close proximity, which means the dog is receiving about 400ftlbs of blunt force trauma (if the vest is able to catch the round), and it is receiving that trauma in a very small area. Most trauma vets that I have spoke w/over the years will tell you that unfortunately a dog receiving that much blunt force trauma in the torso area it will usually result in very destructive trauma to the rib cage, sternum area, etc. and that trauma will often result in the death of the animal. In contrast to that, I've had the extremely unfortunate opportunity to witness and speak directly to owner/operators of dogs that have been shot and stabbed in the field; and while some do in die from their wounds, the resiliency of the animal (especially the ones selected for military or police K9 service) will carry them through most incidents that are not immediately life threatening. The worst case scenario I've been directly involved in is a GSD that took 4 rounds (one to the face, one head on torso, one in the shoulder and one into the chest from the side). This dog was critically injured, however w/immediate trauma based first aid, a quick transport and fast ER attendance, this dog survived the incident and was able finish out a happy life after a couple of surgeries.

Third, let's look at weight and other negative factors the vest causes. A typical vest weighs about 5lbs. A typical military, SWAT or Patrol based K9 weighs 65-85lbs. So, the vest will add approximately 6-8% of non-product weight to the dog; or as a perspective that be an additional 10-20lbs of added weight to an average man. An average IIIa ballistic vest (which is what the K9 vests are) for a human weighs about 3.5lbs, so a K9 vest is 3-6 times heavier than its human counterpart in relation to weight of vest to weight of wearer ratio. The biggest attribute and reason to use a K9 in Military, SWAT or Police work is the scenting ability of the dog; in other words to find shit including suspects that the officer/team normally would not be able to detect. The second largest attribute and reason for K9 use is speed and agility. The average man can run about 8mph, and average Malinois can clip mid to high 20s w/ease. The largest determining factor in surviving any violent deadly encounter is efficiency. The dog is far more efficient that the human at covering distance, using its senses and engaging prey without hesitation or consideration; this is what makes the dog far more efficient at apprehension. Most of us have heard the term Surprise, Speed and Violence of Action. Again, the dog significantly outperforms the human in these areas. It is detrimental to the animal (and we are actually increasing risk to the animal) when we reduce any of its natural physical or mental attributes that we expect and call upon for its service. Since a vest increases the weight of the dog, the negative factor of that will be decrease speed. Although design has gotten better, the vest can move around on the dog, and a shift of the vest's position on the dog's body can trigger a reduction in mobility further negating the dogs' natural attributes. The vest also adds bulk (it's minimal, but still there) to the dog's body making it more difficult to navigate confined space. The vest also creates a potential "hang up point" for protruding object. If you think about the confines of a crawl space, an attic, etc… we've all been in them and got a shirt, a belt a chunk of our own skin hung up on a protruding nail in rafter, etc… That protrusion is much more likely to interfere with the dog as it navigates the confined space in relation to a dog operating without shit hanging off it's body. If the dog gets hung up on a nail winding through a crawl space and is delayed or even slowed in when in close proximity to the suspect, it's much easier for the suspect to be successful at launching violent counter measures. Finally, the vest provides the suspect a location from which that can grab onto to remove pressure from the bite/fight of the dog as it is engaged (similar to a collar but much easier to grab onto than a collar while being bit).

The last point I'll make about potential negative affects of a dog wearing a ballistic vest is heat retention. Most vests are black which radiates heat. Dogs also cool through panting, if you tighten something around the chest breathing efficiency is reduced; if the vest isn't tight around the chest, it'll move around creating the above mentioned issues. A dog will also cool quicker through cool area or cool water on it underbelly. The vest will mitigate the ability for the dog to cool off efficiently since you can't get the vest wet and there is less "belly to air" ratio for the dog to cool from. Dogs overheat much quicker than humans as there is a smaller range between normal operating temp vs. overheating (most dogs have a normal running temp of 101 +/- 1 degree), and they reach heat exhaustion/stroke at about 104 +/- 1 degree; not much room to play with especially when we've decreased the dogs natural cooling efficiency. So in warm or hot climates search time is reduced, and the "team" becomes less efficient; the dog enters a state of heat exhaustion much faster and is unable to cool itself as efficiently with the restrictions of the vest.

In my opinion, the very few benefits that the vests actually offers DO NOT outweigh the additional risks, restrictions and reduction of efficiency that they bring to the equation. The idea and desires of protecting our partners is not one that is considered lightly; most trainers and handlers have done a great amount of research and factored the above information in their decisions on whether or not to have our partners don ballistic vests. It is rarely a matter of lack of funds or carelessness on the part of the handler or agency.

There is a reason that top tier military operators will run a light weight plate carrier instead of having their bodies wrapped in full ballistic panels that cover the entire torso, upper arms, neck, groin and even head; and the reason is efficiency.

So, in conclusion, the best thing that handlers can do to protect the K9 from gunshot wounds, etc. is to process as much intel as they have available in what is sometimes a split second decision and to not bring a dog to a gun fight. If the suspect presents a gun preemptive of the apprehension, then the dog should be out of play and we bring guns to that fight. If the suspect is hiding in a known location and he is believed to be armed… it's not a dog operation; it's time to use other tools such as electronics (robotics, pole cams, mirrors, thermal imagery, gas, etc. and ultimately well trained humans that are capable of responding w/deadly force (which the dog is not)…

What the dog should be used for is to locate or search/clear the unknown (we're not sure he's here, yes we know he may be armed but we do not know specifically where he/she is) time for dog (still after electronics if possible especially in buildings); we should use the dog to capture the violent offender who is fleeing, but not when he has a gun/knife in his hand, that suspect needs to be addressed by armed humans; we should understand that sometimes the handler does everything right in their intel gathering, decision making and deployment yet the suspect is still able to access a weapon during pursuit or apprehension and then uses deadly force against the dog… shit happens, and at this point we should hope the handler/team members get into the fight and neutralize the threat quickly so the dog can be assessed and cared for!! This is really the best that can be done internally (agency, handler, etc..)

Now what can be done externally…

Is for you and those you know and care about or those have an influence over to get involved in local and state law legislation as it pertains to police dogs and work toward acquiring stricter penalties for those that use deadly force against a police K9. Most people don't know that officers are not permitted to use deadly force to defend their K9 partners (even if deadly force is being used against the dog); the threat must somehow (although rather easy to articulate) transfer to the human counterparts for it to be legal for an officer to use deadly force against the suspect; most people don't know that the penalty for harming or killing a police K9 is on a misdemeanor or low level felony… those incidents are generally not treated as BWDW on an Officer or Murder or Attempt Murder of an officer; there is usually a separate criminal statute that deals specifically with police dogs and it's less intrusive to the suspect that doing the same to an officer.

Stiffer penalties will not eliminate violence against the police dog, but they are a step in the right direction; and being able to classify a police dog as an officer would help their partners be able to defend them easier w/o falling victim to civil or even criminal repercussions post incident.

So, know the laws in your state, and if they are lacking in definition or penalty lobby for stricter penalties against violators and more inclusion of the K9 in being view as an actual officer per statute.

Finally, support better training for the handlers. A lot of handlers operate out of small agencies that don't have the same exposure, so they may lack training in certain areas that could help them make better decisions in gather intel, deploying, etc… A lot of agencies have gotten away from 'outside training'; either bringing it in or sending their officers out for it. Networking and information sharing is critical to the success of the team and safety of its members, and it affects smaller agencies in non-violent areas the most. These handlers / teams need access to the same information, experiences, and training to be efficient at what they do.

If a small community can raise $1,500-$2,000 for one or two handlers to attend a 4 or 5 day conference that they department can't or won't pay for, it will give that handler an opportunity to network w/more experienced team members. They'll get training that is not found within their normal training group setting and be able to hear stories and attend classes taught by guys that have done it right but more importantly by guys who've made mistakes and suffered the repercussions of that/those mistake(s). Most conferences include a few 'debrief' classes where handlers share their experiences, and we've found that they are so impactful (in a good way) to attendees that those types of classes now make up 1/4 to 1/3 of conference speakers/trainers… These conferences usually will have first aid/trauma workshops where handlers can learn how to care for their animals in the event of serious trauma, etc…

 

I scanned what you wrote but didn't see the TL;DR version...

 

Here's a video of an operation done right. The incident occurs in Tucson, and a take down team is waiting for an opportunity to apprehend a wanted violent offender. The team sees the suspect exit the store on foot and start to make his way back to his vehicle. Not wanting the operation to go mobile and seeing the suspect is currently unarmed, they approach and order him to stop and go to the ground. The suspect immediately flees and a K9 is deployed to apprehend. The suspect quickly brings a pistol into play as the dog is engaging him in the leg and they both end up on the ground. As you can see in the video, the suspect is leveling the pistol right toward the dogs head and preparing to shoot (a vest on this dog would not have prevented the dog from taking a round if the suspect would have been able to squeeze off a round)!!!

The take down team does a fantastic job of continuing the pursuit as well and upon seeing the suspect's weapon, they maneuver into a position where the operator is able to safely neutralize the threat without injuring the dog. Too many times, officers see the weapon manifest, and they quickly engage the suspect w/deadly force without proper awareness of the dog's relation to the violent encounter and end up shooting the dog and the suspect. But, these guys absolutely "did it right"!!!!

note: the video is not "gory" but it does contain a dog bite and subsequent use of deadly force on the suspect… I thought it would be good to show a "win" for the good guys!!!!

https://www.theblaze.com/news/body-cam-video-police-shooting-dog

 

Sorry it's a bit long, but I was just trying to answer your question (concern) in detail. A lot of folks have that same concern and don't understand why most LEO K9s lack ballistic protection, and they will spend hours or $$ trying to do or advocate for what they believe is the right thing or most beneficial for the dog. However, those folks usually lack knowledge of how a true violent encounter between a suspect and police/military K9 plays out. So, without that knowledge a lot of emotion and good intention goes to waste and those resources could be better spent to save K9 lives and make the team safer. That's all I was trying to say, but with a strong basis and some factual information (using analogies that people can relate to) to support my point.

But, more importantly, thank you for giving a shit about working K9s and for trying to make things better and safer for them during deployments!!!

 

@tripleconpanna

Check out this video where LEOs took out a perp serving a warrant at a gas station. The dude got served some instant justice when he took a pistol out and aimed it at the K9's head.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/body-cam...rities-opening-fire-suspect-aims-gun-k9s-head

 

Yeah… it's a good one; same video I posted above (post #40)

See you could've taken the time you spent posting that to read my original response to you

Cheers!!!!

 

I'm sensing an "I gotcha" moment......

 

Badass, man, badass. If you didn't live in CO, I might've mistaken you for a fellow Texan

Again, it's awesome you took in Kilo as most folks wouldn't take on such a liability.

When the imbeciles came upon your house as a potential victory, did you consider even for a brief moment to open the door and let Kilo rip into em?

 

That's pretty bold of them. Any idea if they were caught or still on the loose? It's one thing when a bumbling idiot decides to commit a crime but a whole other concern when it's a cold blooded person with a plan... that calls for serious prep and you were clearly that. It's folks like you who will keep the bad guys at bay, not gov't and not law enforcement (not anymore).

I carry everywhere I go and my area is far from ghetto, but we are seeing a different element move in as the big city dwellers push further north. I'm unapologetic about my beliefs and, as you said, when it comes to protecting property and my own, I'll be damned if I am gonna let someone trample either.

 

If I'm not mistaken, a couple of the gun owner/carry insurance companies cover altercations that aren't handled with guns. I wonder if attack dog qualifies

 

I've got to disagree w/that perspective…it's much more than trespassing; I think you are mitigating the actions and intentions of the suspect(s) by calling it trespassing; your articulation elevates it far beyond that!!!

@texasrho83 (you'll probably want to skip this post also)

If they've already defeated the first locking mechanism that in of itself is 'in the commission of a burglary" (felony); if they've done so w/your belief that they were aware of your presence in the home and continued moving forward, it quickly transitions to Home Invasion or Burg w/Robbery (crime against a person instead of property crime) depending on jurisdiction but either way should be a higher class of felony and thus elevating your justification in use of force. Using your own articulation, said subject(s) continued the commission of their crime in spite of knowingly being faced w/an intermediate use of force once entry was made (dog). It is then reasonable for your to believe, as you already have that one or more of the suspect(s) were in possession of a dangerous/deadly weapon.

I would never say not taking action was a mistake, especially when it worked out. However, once the first lock was defeated (under those circumstances) and they were then attempting to defeat second lock (in my opinion) you have enough to stop their actions and prevent any further intrusion. This is even more solidified if any other family members were present, and here is the articulation:

You are the sole line of defense between these idiots and your family; you can only effectively cover a small area of responsibility (at that time your attention was completely focused on covering 2 believed to be armed suspects who were not only attempting but successfully defeating your mechanical security devices); you have to be aware of additional points of entry/intrusion into the home which you cannot cover and have no way of knowing if additional suspects were already in the process of defeating any of those other points of entry; fact: organized Home Invasion based attacks/crimes are routinely committed by multiple organized dangerous offenders, and in these incidents it is not uncommon for suspects to attack multiple points of entry at the same time (or to stage a ruse at the front door while other suspects make entry elsewhere); end result is that in most jurisdictions you'd be more than justified in ripping a round into the subject attempting to defeat that final lock in an attempt to put an immediate end to the suspect(s) actions and put an end to any further attack on you or your family.

*** Obviously this is my opinion and not formal legal advice…. However, if you need factual accounts of this tactic being used during the commission of Home Invasions by suspects for your own knowledge base, just search 'Home Invasions Las Vegas Valley' and there are numerous accounts of this tactic by victims, law enforcement and news outlets ***

 

Nope, read it and totally concur.

 

How it should work and how it legally works are, sadly, very different things. That's why he said he wished for Texas laws. He would be justified in use of force, but not in 2 of the states that start with "C". Can't speak for Connecticut.

 

Yeah what the hell was I thinking?? Better off just speed dialing 911 and pushing the activate button on your 'Ring' devices

 

Back when my cousin was Chief he told me that ppl are better off being ready to protect themselves cause the only thing cops can do once they get there is get the chalk out and write up the report.

 

So sorry to hear this. Just remember.....

 

If you were the only one there; handle business then call once you're safe! If another family member is present, have them call 911 and provide suspect and suspect vehicle description (even if all that can be given is 2 dudes and white truck), but even more importantly have the person who calls give a complete description of you (teach them to go head down) IE>> My husband is downstairs and armed; he's a WM tall w/med building wearing black hat, w t-shirt, tan shorts and cowboy boots; the most important thing for you is not get shot by responding officers…. This is a good protocol especially if you are at a public place and encounter an incident that you end up involved in (especially active shooter); have whoever your with move to safety if they are not staying w/you, call 911 and give same info so you're not mistaken for a bad guy….

Finally with the wording in your statutes, I suggest you determine what is meant by 'unlawful entry into the dwelling'… This is the actual statute for your incident….
18-1-704.5. Use of Deadly Physical Force Against an Intruder

1. 1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3. 3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4. 4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

… so the real question would be what determine unlawful entry? There is some case law that addresses common ground in multi-family housing; locked vs unlocked doors, etc… I don't see unlawful entry defined though, and while one would think it would mean putting ones body beyond the threshold, there may be other components that trigger prima facia evidence of "entry"… Does the act of breaching a locking mechanism meet the standard for "in the commission of"? Does the breaking of glass or the suspect being in the act of using a pry tool to defeat security at the threshold trigger 'that unlawful entry has been or is being made'???

IE>>> Committing rape in most jurisdictions calls for 'penetration however so slight'. However, ripping a girls underwear off her privates is prima facia evidence in most jurisdictions to cover 'attempt' or 'in the commission of' and therefore does not require the victim to experience the violation before appropriate mitigating action can be taken...

It is a good idea to know who you'd call for legal representation in an event like this; ask local cops who they would use; and then reach out to that law firm; schedule and pay for a consult (it's worth the 200-400 dollars); ask these questions; and ask how you should handle post incident interviews w/law enforcement, etc.; most will tell you brief statement that guides them through the scene, etc. but do not make a formal statement w/o representation...