# Police dog attacks jogger



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Stamford police dog attacks Greenwich jogger - GreenwichTime

This actually happened a mile or two from my house. 

Not too sure what happened here or what the dog could have been thinking to just attack a random jogging by. A trained police dog without a reliable recall?

Is this just a case of bad training? Bad nerves? A combo of both?


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

> "*Suddenly I heard the police officer say, `Stop running. Don't move.* He won't bite," said Maria Braccio, 52. "I looked back and I saw this huge dog just charging at me. I just froze. *I didn't know what to do*."


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

"_Nivakoff said this was not the first problem that Phelan had with McGee.
Sometime in the past while a delivery was made to Phelan's home, McGee "nipped" a delivery man.
Nivakoff said the delivery man did not make a complaint and internal affairs, who investigates police misconduct, was never alerted to the incident."_

Well someone just got thrown under a bus!

Seriously, that sounds like a very vicious attack. Shocking that a trained K9 would just go off like that. It will be interesting to find out about the training he completed...


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

No reliable recall, no reliable "out" and who knows what else. There has to be a LOT more going on behind the scenes here. It would be rare to take a dog permanently out of service for one incident, even though this is a severe one.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Some serious evaluations need to be conducted. My handlers know my philosophy on such an occasion; an accidental dog bite should occur no more frequently than an accidental shooting. It just shouldn't happen. I'd sure like to see what IA has to say about it. In the meantime, get the checkbook out.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I always knew jogging was hazardous to your health.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

selzer said:


> I always knew jogging was hazardous to your health.


Is it in bad taste if I laugh at this!


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

selzer said:


> I always knew jogging was hazardous to your health.


Exactly!! I can add another good reason to my list of why I don't jog. I could get attacked by a crazed police dog.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

I actually see this dog outside all the time sitting in it's handlers front yard all by himself. I never even knew it was a police dog until I read this article.... just thought it was someones pet. 

I'm assuming it's got one of those electric fences because I see it just sitting outside without anyone supervising and without a fence. It just sits in the front yard. 

I always avoided walking by their house with Lucy because I never trust those electric fences... I never would have thought the dog was a k9.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Lucy Dog said:


> I actually see this dog outside all the time sitting in it's handlers front yard all by himself. I never even knew it was a police dog until I read this article.... just thought it was someones pet.
> 
> I'm assuming it's got one of those electric fences because I see it just sitting outside without anyone supervising and without a fence. It just sits in the front yard.
> 
> I always avoided walking by their house with Lucy because I never trust those electric fences... I never would have thought the dog was a k9.



Wow, good call trusting your sixth sense. :hug:


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Mrs.K said:


> Wow, good call trusting your sixth sense. :hug:


It's not a six sense... I just don't trust any dog bigger than a football with an electric fence. I just avoid the spots all together where people leave their dogs out on electric fences. 

You hear too many stories of being attacked on walks... I just try and avoid it from happening to me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lucy Dog said:


> I actually see this dog outside all the time sitting in it's handlers front yard all by himself. I never even knew it was a police dog until I read this article.... just thought it was someones pet.
> 
> I'm assuming it's got one of those electric fences because I see it just sitting outside without anyone supervising and without a fence. It just sits in the front yard.
> 
> I always avoided walking by their house with Lucy because I never trust those electric fences... I never would have thought the dog was a k9.


I am interested in what everyone thinks about this situation and from what viewpoint. Should Paul call or write to his police department, with this information. 

I mean, the newspaper writes this up as though the officer is walking out to his car with the dog to load him up. 

If this is true that the officer leaves this dog in the front yard all the time, than it does not do k9 officers any good to keep mum. I mean, it is blatantly stupid to leave an expensive police dog loose and unsupervised. The community is footing the bill for this. 

This is not about getting the LEO k9 handler in trouble, but is it a good idea for him to NOT have this reflected on his record? Do you want him to get another dog? 

If it was me that knew that this dog was routinely left unattended in its yard with no fencing or even e-fencing, I would probably think I SHOULD call or write a letter, but be too chicken to actually do so.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Selzer... this actually crossed my mind as I was reading the story. I'm not too sure how well it would go over if I got a cop in this town in any more trouble than he's probably already in. You know how all that goes... that's really my only issue. 

I live about a mile or two from this guy and the dog, so I'm not in his exact neighborhood. The area where he lives is very residential. It's house after house after house... your typical suburban neighborhood. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this dog unsupervised. The only reason I really ever noticed and remembered was because it was a GSD.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

how about an anonymous tip? If one person steps forward, maybe others will too.

This is stuff that qualifies as "Common Sense FAIL"...


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

Lucy Dog said:


> Selzer... this actually crossed my mind as I was reading the story. I'm not too sure how well it would go over if I got a cop in this town in any more trouble than he's probably already in. You know how all that goes... that's really my only issue.
> 
> I live about a mile or two from this guy and the dog, so I'm not in his exact neighborhood. The area where he lives is very residential. It's house after house after house... your typical suburban neighborhood. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen this dog unsupervised. The only reason I really ever noticed and remembered was because it was a GSD.


Reading "between the lines", I have the distinct feeling that there is a lot more going on here than the news story indicates. (Retired sheriff's sgt. and former K9 handler)
Just some of the actions that are being taken and the tone of the story leads me to believe that there will be a lot of things coming out as a result of the investigation of this incident.
An anonymous call/letter might not be the worst idea.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If someone comes forward, they could actually specifically ask neighbors if they have seen the dog loose, etc. 

I am not sure they would think it all that important. But it sounds like this woman's wounds were extreme, and even a little bit of common sense, management would have avoided this. 

But you are right. I would be chicken to be the whistle blower. I live in a rural county with a small population, lots of friends and relations, and, well, gossip.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think incidents like this hurt our breed, and they hurt k-9 programs. 

Great demonstrations and hero-awards ceramonies like our club had Saturday do not stick in your mind like someone jogging by and getting bit up in the leg, arm and head. 

The evil that men (or dogs) do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones... 

People remember the bad stuff. They will remember that it was a k-9. They will remember that it was a GSD, and that will cancel out a whole hoard of great things the dogs do.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

selzer said:


> The evil that men (or dogs) do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones...


HA! thought this was an Einstein quote, but see now that it is Shakespeare. Boy was I off! :rofl:


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Did anyone notice how long the dog has been working with the Stamford PD? The article seemed to imply it wasn't very long at all.

I wonder if the dog was supposed to have a reliable recall and out as well? Could be that the dept. didn't do a very good job of screening and selecting the dog.

The word quarintine also seemed to imply that the dog was an import (or at least I assumed that).


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

codmaster said:


> Did anyone notice how long the dog has been working with the Stamford PD? The article seemed to imply it wasn't very long at all.


I know ive seen the dog in front of the house for at least a year or two now.

I don't know how long he's been a working k9 though.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Lucy Dog said:


> I live about a mile or two from this guy and the dog, so I'm not in his exact neighborhood. .


This is the same dog that you said was: "I always avoided walking by their house with Lucy because I never trust those electric fences... I never would have thought the dog was a k9." 

Long walks. Just how often do you see the do unattended. Are you sure the officer wasn't near by and you just didn't see him.

I've already said what I thought about the incident. I also think if you have information that could help in an investigation you should provide that information. Just make sure you give facts and not inferences, implications and "I thinks". A man's career could be on the line. 

DFrost


----------



## eddie1976E (Nov 7, 2010)

*Incident with police K-9*

Anyone have theories as to why this happened? It is unfortunate. 

Stamford, Conn. Police Dog Named 'McGee' Attacks Jogger, Demoted To House Pet - Courant.com


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

There is already a thread about this here: 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/current-dog-affairs/158651-police-dog-attacks-jogger.html?highlight=mcgee

But this is a different article 

----OK the mod combined the thread. So now this looks like a very strange post aranoid:


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

DFrost said:


> This is the same dog that you said was: "I always avoided walking by their house with Lucy because I never trust those electric fences... I never would have thought the dog was a k9."
> 
> Long walks. Just how often do you see the do unattended. Are you sure the officer wasn't near by and you just didn't see him.
> 
> ...


Sometimes I go over to that neighborhood just to walk her around there. It's very quiet and peaceful. Sometimes I like to change up the walk a little and I'll drive over there, park the car, and walk her around the block.

I'm positive I didn't see anyone in front of the house the few times I saw the dog outside. It was just a dog sitting in the front yard - no fence and no supervision. I haven't seen the dog outside since last summer though since I haven't really been around there lately. I used to go a lot more.

It's really none of my business though. I'm not trying to get a cop into anymore trouble than he already is in. There's just certain things you don't get involved in and getting a cop into more trouble than he's probably in is one of them. It's a big town, but it's also a very small town if you know what I mean.

If the neighbors want to get involved and come forward, it's up to them to do so. I'm sure they see the dog a lot more often than I ever did. I just don't think it's going to be me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think your right, there is just no way to go about it and come out just a concerned citizen who wants the best possible outcome for everyone. And if you haven't seen this in about a year, that is not like, recent history.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Simple matter of the policeman being sloppy in the handling of a dangerous dog ... with disastrous results. Feel very sorry for the woman, at least until the check clears.


----------



## webzpinner (Mar 7, 2011)

The dog should get an award. Maybe a milkbone in the shape of a key to the city. Any dog that attacks a Greenwich wacko is a hero in my book.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

PaddyD said:


> Simple matter of the policeman being sloppy in the handling of a dangerous dog ... with disastrous results. Feel very sorry for the woman, at least until the check clears.


I also agree with DFrost, this simply should not happen. It's a matter of a sloppy handler and a poorly trained dog. No recall and no "out" just beg something like this to happen.
I would imagine there will be a few zeros at the end of that check.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

webzpinner said:


> The dog should get an award. Maybe a milkbone in the shape of a key to the city. Any dog that attacks a Greenwich wacko is a hero in my book.


I actually grew up with the womans daughter. We were in the same kindergarten class. 

How is an innocent woman jogging on the side of the road a wacko?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Isn't there some section of NYC that is called Greenwich Village that used to be a pretty wacko-filled place? Or do I read too much fiction?


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

DFrost said:


> I've already said what I thought about the incident. I also think if you have information that could help in an investigation you should provide that information. Just make sure you give facts and not inferences, implications and "I thinks". A man's career could be on the line.
> DFrost


When a K-9 is at home, are they supposed to be kept on a leash if they aren't contained behind a fence, or in a crate? Or do the rules change depending on which department you're dealing with? Just curious.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

selzer said:


> Isn't there some section of NYC that is called Greenwich Village that used to be a pretty wacko-filled place? Or do I read too much fiction?


Yeah... that's downtown manhattan. Kind of by Houston Street and Canal Street. Different Greenwich though. 

You see a bunch of weirdos in the village walking around at night, but it's actually one of the most expensive places to rent an apartment in NYC now. One bedroom apartments easily go for $5k+ a month at the least. 

Just like the rest of Manhattan, it's changed a lot.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

Whiteshepherds said:


> When a K-9 is at home, are they supposed to be kept on a leash if they aren't contained behind a fence, or in a crate? Or do the rules change depending on which department you're dealing with? Just curious.


 It's usually an agency policy decision. I treated mine like a normal pet when we weren't at work. We went some places where we could be off leash and places where he had to be off leash.
For the most part, in public, they were on leash. When we went to a larger park or on hikes, we did some off leash stuff.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

Whiteshepherds said:


> When a K-9 is at home, are they supposed to be kept on a leash if they aren't contained behind a fence, or in a crate? Or do the rules change depending on which department you're dealing with? Just curious.


The handler is responsible for the actions of that dog. It's up to the handler to ensure the dog is not in a position that such incidents occur. Dogs may be well trained but they are dogs. I've seen a lot of trained dogs in my career, I've never seen a perfect one. 

DFrost


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

It appears that this dog was undertrained or underhandled or both.

The only real police dog that I have been up close and personal with (one from Cincinnati, Oh) was real calm and gentle dog in his home and actually welcomed us in the house (with the owner present of course). It appears that this is what the K9's should be like off duty. Sort of like a human PO!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

codmaster said:


> It appears that this dog was undertrained or underhandled or both.
> 
> The only real police dog that I have been up close and personal with (one from Cincinnati, Oh) was real calm and gentle dog in his home and actually welcomed us in the house (with the owner present of course). It appears that this is what the K9's should be like off duty. Sort of like a human PO!!!!!!!!!!


I would agree at the moment of the incident the dog was "underhandled". Beyond that we can only speculate. I would disagree with what you think a PSD should be like off duty. Some need kenneled. Some want absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than the handler. That's perfectly acceptable. Calm, absolutely. Some dogs however just can't be around strangers. The handler controls the situation and the dog. As long as the dog does exactly as it's trained, whether or not it can socialize when "off-duty" is unimportant. 

DFrost


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

There is a K9 in my neighborhood. The owner's vehicle says Homeland Security. The dog is always penned or in the house. I now appreciate the owner/handler's attention to detail.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

DFrost said:


> I would agree at the moment of the incident the dog was "underhandled". Beyond that we can only speculate. I would disagree with what you think a PSD should be like off duty. Some need kenneled. Some want absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than the handler. That's perfectly acceptable. Calm, absolutely. Some dogs however just can't be around strangers. The handler controls the situation and the dog. As long as the dog does exactly as it's trained, whether or not it can socialize when "off-duty" is unimportant. DFrost


Whether the K9 needs to be "sociable" depends entirely on it's job and it's off duty environment.
It is critical if the dog is taken home by the PO and lives with the family as I understand many of them do!

They don't have to be friendly but they do have to be approachable and able to be around strangers and be able to discriminate bad from good people.

Would you think that a K9 should only bite on command or on their own initiative?

One of the dogs you describe as ok above sounds like the military "Sentry" dogs that used to be used a great deal - only their handler could approach them and it took a long time to introduce them to a new handler when their current one was due to be rotated. 

You are not suggesting that this type of temperament is acceptable in a current police K9, are you?

"Some need kenneled." - do you mean by this that they are entirely untrustworthy around other people than their handler? How would they then work in an environment where there might be other PO's or even civilians?


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

codmaster said:


> Whether the K9 needs to be "sociable" depends entirely on it's job and it's off duty environment.
> It is critical if the dog is taken home by the PO and lives with the family as I understand many of them do!
> 
> They don't have to be friendly but they do have to be approachable and able to be around strangers and be able to discriminate bad from good people.
> ...



Sociable is not a required trait in a Police Service Dog. Controllable is requisite. Some dogs do assimilate into the family. Some never well. It is not the dog's responsibility to discriminate bad from good. It's the handler's responsibility to use the dog only when required, regardless of what the dog may or may not think. Not only do I "think" the dog should only bite on command, it's what I teach. it's what the policy requires. There are only two times it's acceptable for a PSD to engage (bite) 1. When he's commanded 2. When the handler/dog is attacked. There are no exceptions.

The PSD of today has very little in common with the Sentry Dog of years ago. I guess sociable may mean different things to different people. Just because a PSD doesn't turn it off and become a pet at home, doesn't mean it can't be a good PSD. Don't confuse a dog that can't be trusted without the handler present, with not being able to be controlled by the handler. That's why some are kenneled when not working. When working and under control of the handler, it's only going to engage when permitted. 

DFrost


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

webzpinner said:


> The dog should get an award. Maybe a milkbone in the shape of a key to the city. Any dog that attacks a Greenwich wacko is a hero in my book.


You know NOTHING about this woman other than where she lives and that she jogs - that makes her a "wacko" in your eyes? 

So, everyone living in Greenwich is a wacko and deserves to be bitten by a dog? The cop lives there too, perhaps he's also a wacko and deserves to be bitten by his dog? Wow, just.......wow. :thumbsdown: The attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

DFrost said:


> Sociable is not a required trait in a Police Service Dog. Controllable is requisite. Some dogs do assimilate into the family. Some never well. It is not the dog's responsibility to discriminate bad from good. It's the handler's responsibility to use the dog only when required, regardless of what the dog may or may not think. Not only do I "think" the dog should only bite on command, it's what I teach. it's what the policy requires. There are only two times it's acceptable for a PSD to engage (bite) 1. When he's commanded 2. When the handler/dog is attacked. There are no exceptions.
> 
> The PSD of today has very little in common with the Sentry Dog of years ago. I guess sociable may mean different things to different people. Just because a PSD doesn't turn it off and become a pet at home, doesn't mean it can't be a good PSD. Don't confuse a dog that can't be trusted without the handler present, with not being able to be controlled by the handler. That's why some are kenneled when not working. When working and under control of the handler, it's only going to engage when permitted. DFrost


Don't know if we disagree much, except maybe in words and definitions.

"Sociable" is an absolute requirement to me - but it means only that the dog is extremly trustworthy and can be trusted out in public - not that they love everyone at all. But a PD that can not be trusted to be in public and around people is ridiculous and should never be permitted (BTW, I also think that any ScH dog must be the same way!).

*"Not only do I "think" the dog should only bite on command, it's what I teach. it's what the policy requires. There are only two times it's acceptable for a PSD to engage (bite) 1. When he's commanded 2. When the handler/dog is attacked. There are no exceptions."*

Isn't there a contradiction here? - *"Only on command" *and* "when the handler/dog is attacked".* These are mutually exclusive unless one assumes that the handler will ALWAYS be able to give a command when he/she is attacked.

Big training difference between these two approaches. 

For example, should a PD be able to distinguish between a "bad guy" and a little 3 yo child who comes running up to him? Of course, else that dog has no business being out on the public streets!

In either case, of course, it goes without saying that the dog must always be under extreme control - even better than a top obedience dog in my mind. An attack trained dog is a lethal weapon.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

I'd agree our differences seem to be terminology more than anything else. I guess your words "extremely trustworthy" mean the same thing as when I say, under control of the handler. When you say: "Isn't there a contradiction here? - *"Only on command" *and* "when the handler/dog is attacked".* These are mutually exclusive unless one assumes that the handler will ALWAYS be able to give a command when he/she is attacked." They are two distinct and separate occasions. When commanded OR when handler/dog is attacked. The distinctions must be spelled out and not an assumed action. It's not a play on words. 

I do take great exception however to one statement you make. You say: "An attack trained dog is a lethal weapon." The 6th Circuit has ruled otherwise. The ruling has been cited in numerous cases in many different courts. It's an important and distinct ruling within law enforcement circles. A trained police dog is NOT deadly force. You can review the decision here: http://openjurist.org/854/f2d/909/robinette-v-barnes

DFrost


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

WOW = sounds like the Greenwich PD has some major issues judging from some of the posters comments. IMHO they should be notified that the dog was allowed outside in what I assume was an unfenced area without supervision ... even if it's done anonymously.

"_As the 140-pound woman was running by the officer's home_ ..." - gosh how embarrassing, first the poor woman is mauled by an out of control police K9, then the paper publishes her weight for the whole world to see!


----------



## dogsnkiddos (Jul 22, 2008)

A k9 officer and his partners live down the street. When the dogs are in the yard they are loose in the yard (it is fenced) ONLY if there is an adult there as well. When there is no adult the dogs are secured separately in kennels located inside of the fenced yard. My children play there with the children of the officer. The dogs are allowed to play with my kids but they have a pretty firm rule that no other children than their own play with the dogs. My kids are only allowed because they have shown themselves to be pretty dog savvy (they know how to play with high prey drive dogs). That said, those playtimes are supervised by the adults and very regimented. 

I figure the dogs were selected to work because of possessing particular temperaments. Those traits don't necessarily make them warm fuzzy house pets. I accept that- but I also expect them to be under pretty good control. Thus far that has proven true. I trust that the handler has control and has routines for when he is not there to oversee that control. If Cobra were sitting loose in the front yard with no one in sight would I jog by...probably not- despite that I expect his training/control to be top notch, I don't think anything is perfect and I would not want to tempt fate.

I feel badly for that poor jogger. It must have been painful and traumatizing.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

DFrost said:


> I'd agree our differences seem to be terminology more than anything else. I guess your words "extremely trustworthy" mean the same thing as when I say, under control of the handler. When you say: "Isn't there a contradiction here? - *"Only on command" *and* "when the handler/dog is attacked".* These are mutually exclusive unless one assumes that the handler will ALWAYS be able to give a command when he/she is attacked." They are two distinct and separate occasions. When commanded OR when handler/dog is attacked. The distinctions must be spelled out and not an assumed action. It's not a play on words.
> 
> *So then the dog must be trained to obey a comman (i.e. "get him"!) AND be discriminating enough to recognize the real threat and react without a command? A real good reason to train a very reliable recall!*
> 
> ...


Thanks!

"*In my opinion*, An attack trained dog *can* *be* a lethal weapon." 
Let me change this to the above.

May not be considered to be "lethal" in the law but to us outsiders (and esp. those bitten by mistake, I think it would be considered so.

Could a PD kill a suspect? Would a properly trained dog continue to attack if the handler say is disabled and cannot give the "off" command?

I will be the first to admit - I don't know if they are so trained or even if they should be.

My old ScH trainer (also lead K9 trainer for some PD in NYC) once informed me that he taught the PD dogs to keep attacking until called off by the handler because it was a lot safer for both dog and PO.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The question was raised at the hero dog demo last weekend, and the officers said the dogs are trained to go for extremities only. Of course if the person persists then the dog can defend itself. But I would not consider a dog trained to attack arms and legs lethal force. A dog trained/encouraged to go for heads, necks, and throats, yeah maybe.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> The question was raised at the hero dog demo last weekend, and the officers said the dogs are trained to go for extremities only. Of course if the person persists then the dog can defend itself. But I would not consider a dog trained to attack arms and legs lethal force. A dog trained/encouraged to go for heads, necks, and throats, yeah maybe.


Thanks! That is cool to hear that they are trained that way. I would love to see how they do that training - and it certainly seems to make sense since the weapons used by the suspect (gun/knife) would normally be used in the hands. And it is true that style would make them certainly less lethal!


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

selzer said:


> only. Of course if the person persists then the dog can defend itself. But I would not consider a dog trained to attack arms and legs lethal force. A dog trained/encouraged to go for heads, necks, and throats, yeah maybe.


Sort of agree with what you say. A PSD isn't "defending" itself when told to engage. It's the aggressor. For that reason, what the officer told you was factual. Actually, we don't really "target" any specific area. We absolutely do not practice/target or train for face/throat bites. I think the courts would take a dim view of that practice. The dog is not meant to kill. Actually, the dog's primary function is to detect. It is a locating tool. PSD's do have the added function of engaging a suspect and holding until commanded to release. When a subject fights, the dog fights back. IT's a technical term and "defense" can mean a fear reaction and a good PSD should not be in that mode. At any rate, in the entire history of PSD's in the U.S. there is one case (the one I cited) where the police dog was the proximate cause of death. I think that's a pretty good record. From a legal standpoint it certainly doesn't point toward the "probability" of it happening with any regularity. 

DFRost


----------

