Anyone got any tips.

1. It's silly to push someone when you can punch them.

2. If the dog wants to engage, it doesn't matter.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

You know dogs do exist off the sch field, you are so full up with shit there is no man left......you got points to worry about i got survival and law 271.;

1. Its silly to punch someone when you can go to jail.

2. If the dog wants to engage it does matter how and when. See point one above.

Thanks the advice.

 

keep the dog on the left...weapon hand is for weapon not leash..if you get pushed back teach the dog to bite suspects forward leg.

 

Will i was being very specific, reasonable force allows an escalation to push someone away, cant strike or deploy dog first, thats neither reasonable, or last resort, the attack nearly always comes straight back after the fend, now reasonable force escalates to self defence and a dog can be used especially if the intruder has a weapon like a screw driver as on a worksite i visited where a moron was walking around a guarded premises with a screw driver trying to break into cars under a surveillence camera.

The leg bite might work, there doesnt seem to be a lot of info on how to actually use a dog tactically on leash with limited powers of engagement??

 

regardless of training level and well established ROE, the dog will probably make a decision w/out a verbal command and imo should engage once it's handler is physically engaged "hand to hand" .... regardless of who engages first
- iow, no hooking would be required nor be prevented, unless the dog is a dud and there for a visual show of force only...K9 position might out the window when what you described happens

overall what i see is a hypothetical that probably wouldn't happen that can't be answered without adding more hypotheticals ... and would always be second guessed when the clip shows up on you tube and the "best" way to have done it is debated worldwide ....

prob goes back to the ROE ... which should be discussed and made clear b4 you show up for your shift

last but not least - hard to be two things at once ..K9 handler and fighter
one must take preference or you are imagining a perfect world

so, no, i have no clue; just trying to complicate and over analyze your simple Q

 

regardless of training level and well established ROE, the dog will probably make a decision w/out a verbal command........

If it does dog and handler are legally ****ed

overall what i see is a hypothetical that probably wouldn't happen...

Its not hypothetical and does happen, its the most common scenario faced by a guard patrolling a premises.


last but not least - hard to be two things at once ..K9 handler and fighter one must take preference

I dispute that.

or you are imagining a perfect world ........


Im imagining nothing, its this world and its not perfect :—)

 

I agree with the others on all of their points. As a protection specialist but new to K9s I am adapting my tactics accordingly. Here are some of my thoughts.

1) It is better to keep the weapon hand free. My leash is generally in the left hand only. My gun, and where permitted, club, knife, flashlight, etc, are all accessed with my right hand. I may switch hands and use both when putting the dog "on guard" (e.g. right wrist through the leash loop and holding it, and using my left hand too).

2) Without a dog or a weapon, if you strike first, you are the aggressor. Perhaps you are authorized by law, perhaps not. Consider the consequences of action and inaction.

3) Fighting stances vary. I prefer being square to the target. My firearm or my dog are at the ready on either side. Before having a dog I may have bladed to the left (left foot/support side forward) in a weapon retention scenario, but if I have the dog it's a moot point. Who would foolishly attempt to take my gun when I have the dog? Some dumb ass might try, but the dog is there to assist. As stated previously, the dog will react if I am touched. While facing the target (or bad guy), my vision is at least 180 to all sides. In a fight ring I only have to deal with one guy. In a street fight I need as much tactical vision as possible. So face to face seeing 180 or better for additional threats.

4) Security Professional as opposed to Fighter. Two different sets of rules of engagement and legal obligations. As a security professional or simply for personal protection hand to hand is my least desirable outcome to an altercation. I have a dog and carry a gun. I prefer to engage at a distance with either one. I risk injury in a close fist fight. I mitigate that risk by avoiding the fight - when I am just protecting myself as a private citizen. If protecting someone else, well then, I may be forced to engage but there are legal rules for that. For LEO, they have rules too.

5) Engage with a bigger distance. I am approaching this from a personal protection perspective, not a LEO one. I am either protecting myself or a client and do not wish to engage close up if avoidable. If I turn the dog "on", I may have to get closer to retrieve the dog after an "out", but the threat is most likely reduced or neutralized. From a private or public law enforcement perspective where apprehension may be required, there would hopefully be other officers present who don't have a dog. If not, then as I stated before the threat has been reduced or neutralized by the dog. In some instances you need to be just a handler, in others such a s LEO, you may need play more than one role.

6) State and local laws vary. In Texas, I legally carry a firearm and have a dog for my personal protection. To practice protection professionally, one must be certified by the state. The two are different roles with different legal obligations. Also, in different states there are different weapon laws. In Florida I can carry a club, but not in Texas. In TX I can carry a Taser, but in NJ I cannot. In NJ and some other states I cannot carry a firearm, but in 40 others I can. So my tactics have to vary with my location even for personal protection.

7) The dog and I are training as a team for the real world, not competition. There are things to learn from such competitions but I have to think of street survival first. I need to depend on the dog to protect my life, and I have to train to protect hers. We train together for our mutual street survival. The dog needs to be trained to be effective in fight with a human and survive the fight. In the future when we start training for room clearing and other scenarios, we will train to protect each other accordingly.

 

Just read thru in detail, very practical food for thought, thanx and thanks for all other comments.

 

ok then practice with decoy pushing you and dog coming off your left leg onto right bicep/shoulder area..more chance of a righthanded opponent than a lefty..

 

Will thats it, work straight inside, i knew the arm/wrist bite was all bs mainly.......dont hold out on me, there IS manual for this right.

 

Thanks Pete will read again in more detail but why does noone see the leash as a weapon — i rivetted a clip at the handle end and added some extra mass to the clip.....

 

Invite me to OZ and I will share the secret manual with you...all I want is a bull arab female..that I can breed with my police dog...

 

Thats easy, why bull arab you know like most hunting dogs they got no active aggression with the peoples, they love everyone — no shit, i found most bully breeds people friendly.

Your Dogo is closest to our bull arab, the difference i would guess is bull arab has better nose and cover more ground quicker.

Dogo prolly more aggressive??

 

I think I understand what you are trying to do. So I may be way off base on my comments.

My 2 cents is whatever hand you use your primary weapon with needs to be free. So the leash and dog goes on the other side. You don't want to be trying to manipulate a weapon while holding a leash. The dog will most likely get amped up and chances are you'd loose the dog, your weapon, or both.

My opinion is I wouldn't even have the dog out unless there is a good chance he's going to be needed. A friend gives you a pat on the shoulder and the dog reads it wrong and you have a problem. So you desensitize him to that then a suspect really does assault you and the dog reads it wrong and you have an even bigger problem. Not to mention the dog is going to feed off the energy of the situation when voices get loud and firm and he may nail the guy before he really should. If you are on foot patrol a better tactic would be to let someone else contact the guy that way you can worry about watching your partners back and handling your dog.

If you are out there alone and not option to put the dog up..... Why not put him in a down stay say 10-15 feet back. He's still going to have a visual deterrence and can react quickly, but position yourself so you can see him and the suspect so that the dog can still be called off if he reads it wrong. Plus you would get the added benefit of the hit of the dog to get the guy off balance. You would need a really good down stay and call off. Just need to proof him a lot that a normal take down and handcuff does not = rumble time. Just not sure you can completely keep it clear to him all of the time. All the arrests I've made where we had to get physical (like what you describe) with the people over my 8 years, I can only think of one situation where I would have been ok with a dog lighting the guy up. Now I can think of other situations where the dog would have been a great option.

Better safe than sorry and keep it clear for the dog in my opinion, keep him up until he's needed. If I was in that situation I would rather have my bosses (or a jury) sitting around the table saying, "Completely justifiable bite." than "hmmmm, I don't know about this one."

 

Thanks Brett, some things are not optional but attractive sounding, dog 10—15feet back are you implying off leash? illegal, on a long line mebbe, i think the rule is 6feet of leash but not certain.

As far another person, already taught you cant call for back up, you are the back up.....hell more common for cops to call a guard these days and use the cops clear verbal instruction to send the dog as an assisted arrest. Cop dogs are becoming search tools primarily imo not tools of force.

Yes all bites will go before a boss and a jury, a bite may be justified but a re—grip may be considered excessive an unjustified second bite. I want the dog to come from a rear position to make it clear it was in a position of handler control. You basically need to be assaulted first to justify a deployment, sux when one strike can ruin yr whole night and cause you to lose.

Seems a lot of guys here never ask the questions just tough dudes that get a gig with a dog. i would like to see some certified training standards, there are none. My course involved, the law, nutrition and health!!! Im already more qualified than some, just glad i got some old dudes around who play to win, personally i would like to win AND demonstrate some verifiable standards.

 

I can appreciate the back up comment. I know where I work, I can have it raining police in less than 5 minutes. It is a nice feeling hearing sirens coming from all different parts of the city. It's a wild feeling that's for sure.

That's interesting on the re-grip, I suppose an attorney can argue anything they want. From what I've heard attorney's talk about here, as long as the handler and dog stick to their training the bite is defensible. It's when they go outside that where the problems usually come in. At least that's my understanding.

 

Peter who or what company did you do your so called course with?

 

Peter who or what company did you do your so called course with?[/QUOTE

The RTO works straight from the AQTF training package, can pm you the RTO or you can make that call.

Yr tone bothers me 'so called course' you got something better.

You ask me more questions that seem to be about my integrity, what gives?? i know nothing about you.

 

Peter, is this patrol area fenced in, with restricted access, or open? with a bunch of people coming in and out, legitimately...

 

General question answer is site independent, its a scenario. But to answer, multiple sites that have both yr descriptions.

 

Is the dog supposed to be visual deterrent or actually used to engage, or both.

If you have a dog that is gonna be used to bite people effectively, I dont really see it working out like the plan is, I do not think a dog is going to sit there while you are arguing and pushing someone in a serious amped up situation, or using a weapon to hit them with,,, I see you trying to fight someone and also trying to hold the dog back, how does that work?

could be wrong, but those rules seem a little unrealistic if I read them right.. everything I know about security dogs is either they dont bite (are not trained for it) , they are just deterrent. or the dog is used as a barrier, to keep people away from the handler.

they are expecting you to have to have physical contact with people in a charged situation, and NOT have the dog try to engage?

 

Joby the dogs role is simple and clear, it is not a search tool, it is not for offence it is a last resort tool in pure self defence of the handler and must be justifiably so under the law. Yes the law makes it almost impossible to justify deploying a dog.

There are crowd control dogs but that is outside my training scope and yes detterent and negotiation are the primary tools. Force is legally complex, with or without a dog.

The training if actually done would also be complex one would assume.

 

Joby the dogs role is simple and clear, it is not a search tool, it is not for offence it is a last resort tool in pure self defence of the handler and must be justifiably so under the law. Yes the law makes it almost impossible to justify deploying a dog.

So a passive, non compliant subject is found within the property (boundaries) you are hired to patrol. He refuses all verbal commands ...you cannot touch him???, you can not place him in restraints????, you can not use OC????, you can not use your dog.... How about a frag grenade is that against P&P's?

do you call local law enforcement to handle the situation?

If I am understanding your role and the UoF continuum you must follow...why bother sounds like it is a lose lose situation for you and your dog.

 

Under the law you can use reasonable force to remove someone from the property, eg a physical push, hence the entire scenario in post #1.

Note this applies AFTER negotiation has failed.

 

Under the law you can use reasonable force to remove someone from the property, eg a physical push, hence the entire scenario in post #1.

Note this applies AFTER negotiation has failed.

So a subject found violating boundaries refuses to follow verbal commands to leave the property....and your reasonable force is ... YOU CAN PUSH HIM???

 

Your proposed use of a dog is not practical.

The only way I can see it working out for you would be to train, train and train some more in every way possible with you pushing, yelling and slapping around a decoy while demanding that the dog remain passive unless you are taken to the ground or otherwise overcome by the decoy. If you conditioned the dog to remain passive it wouldn’t matter where the dog was positioned.

That still isn’t practical because a real assailant could stab you or strike you with an impact weapon and IF the dog followed his training he would still remain passive. It also isn’t practical because I think it would be too difficult to get any dog worth his salt to reliably remain passive each and every time you engaged someone.

Your Use of Force policy makes the use of a dog impractical. A dog is not an inanimate object like a baton or gun. A dog doesn’t sit in a holster waiting for you to pull it out. It requires a much higher level of control from its handler. IF you are deploying or patrolling with a dog, once you need to go past verbal commands the dog becomes your primary offensive and defensive tool.

Just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

Tony
all GOOD points
...but not what the OP is looking for

robots would be suckass PSD's or any other type of protection dogs, which is probably why they are hard to train well

when u want explosive and overwhelming force applied by a K9 on demand, hard to balance the "off switch" when training for it ... takes a great dog/handler team to get it right every time

 

Tony, impratical??? This is 100% practical by definition. Difficult to train no doubt. The initial fend by the handler is to create space and buy the time needed to decide on engaging the dog or not.

The law makes it extremely difficult but does not rule out use of a dog, hence the word LAST resort not first, or second...

Overall the laws are reasonable imo, this isnt South Africa.

 

Is your situation entirely hypothetical, or are dogs actually being deployed under the circumstances you describe?

How much control over the dogs do you have right now? Can you currently confront someone where the dog feels your stress down the leash, and then have a verbal confrontation that leads to pushing, WITHOUT the dog engaging?

What is the dog’s cue to engage?

Maybe I’m just not understanding your scenario. If I understand correctly, you want to be able to deploy with a dog, engage someone in a physical confrontation (push them), and the dog does not engage unless the person attacks the handler.

If I understand the scenario correctly, I think the positioning of the dog is the least of your concerns.

The bigger issue is what triggers the dog to engage. How does the dog determine when the handler is being attacked? Even minor physical confrontations can be loud and confusing with things like an intoxicated person grabbing onto you for balance after being pushed, someone practically in your face flipping you the bird or tossing their arms around while talking, etc, etc.

If none of that matters to you and all you want is people’s opinion on whether to move the dog from the typical left side heel position, then my suggestion would be no.

Like you, when I interview or confront someone I stand left foot forward. I do not use a dog professionally. When I’m out and about on my own time with a dog and encounter someone potentially squirrelly, I alter my stance from a left foot forward to a right foot forward. This initially places the dog away from the possible (but not confirmed) threat. Here is why-

a) Unless I’m outright attacked, I do NOT want the dog to bite someone. Placing the dog as far away as possible helps prevent this.

b) Some of the reasons for right handed people to normally stand left foot forward are 1) to position your sidearm as for away from the threat as possible, 2) it enables you to use your support side arm/hand to defend against an attack while you access your sidearm. Or 3) in the case of an unarmed confrontation you can allow your support side arm/hand closest to the assailant to become occupied with blocking or grabbing while using your strong side arm/hand to strike or apply a tactic using more strength, coordination or finer motor skills than you typically possess on your support side hand/arm.

c) Holding a dog waiting to see if a threat will materialize is going to tie up one hand or the other, so you just got to pick the lesser of evils and balance it with civil liability (prevent unwarranted bites). For me, keeping my strong side arm free and altering my normal stance into a right foot forward is the lesser handicap.

Attempting to maintain a normal left foot forward “fighter’s stance” would mean shifting control of the dog to my strong side in order to keep the dog away from some oddball person who was not a confirmed threat. This I think goes to the heart of your question about which side to heel the dog. Tying up your strong side hand/arm is a bigger handicap than shifting to a right foot forward stance. Everything has its down side. By deploying with a dog you gain a tool, but you also give up some of your personal ability in order to maintain control of the dog. It’s a matter of choosing what to give up.

If you alter your stance to right foot forward when handling a dog, simply stepping back with your right foot if/when a definite threat occurs puts you back into a “normal” stance. It will place the dog more or less in-between you and the threat and the dog then becomes a force multiplier for your support side. You strong side is free to do whatever you would normally do in a left foot forward stance.

Yes, this places your sidearm or other weapon you carry on your strong side closer to a potential threat. None of us has a crystal ball or the ability read the mind of a potential assailant, but we’ve got to do the best we can to evaluate people and situations. IF the situation appears low risk, I’d rather have my sidearm towards the oddball person than have the dog towards him. If I evaluated the situation wrong and he tries to disarm me all bets are off and I can justify significant use of force. On the other hand, if I place the dog towards the person, and the dog makes a bad decision, I will have a very difficult time justifying it.

With all that said, I still don’t think it’s practical to go hands on with someone, even if it’s just shoving them around, and not expect the dog to want a piece of the action too.

 

Tony thanks for yr thoughtful response, i will process it further as like other posts its good info to consider. To answer some of yr questions, you read scenario right and it is only hypothetical in that i am not currently in battle while texting. The scenario is typical in this role. There are many other rôles and scenarios but this one is common and relatively simple.

As for the cue my feeling is it should be a sttictly verbal cue. The sport guys argue for hours if a dog should cue on a verbal or on decoy movement. The answer is it depends on the rules of the sport, there is no better answer.

Rules here are a comprimise between législation and survival, get it wrong either way yr equally ****ed.

Old hands didnt have surveillence caméras out the wazoo and laws that seem to favour the bad guys, if a guard told a cop this is what happened then thats what happened.

New more complex game now and the training standards in general dont match the it, in fact there are no training standards at all!!!!

I think some of the skills and methods of sport would transfer nicely.
i dont think the dog in a forward position to the handler is good enough which is where you would find most dogs currently imo.

Anyways lot to consider, adresse yr other comments when i finish processing them.

.Cheers

 

Admittedly, I haven't read all the posts in detail, but I cannot get my head wrapped around these "laws" or ROE's you speak of. They sound ludicrous. Not knocking your thread or your training, but I must ask, are you stateside or an Aussie b/c I know that a lot of Austrailians work security with K9's in many of the ways you speak, mostly due to the ridiculous gun laws down there. You from down under, mate?

 

Yes, definate ozlandia, no point moping about the laws is there???

Whats yr loc.