The Phineas case in Missouri: my report and analysis

Lots of folks have been following the case of Phineas, the Labrador in Missouri accused of biting a child and sentenced to death by the local Mayor. Full details can be found on the 'Net, including the dramatic allegations regarding his treatment and alleged confinement in a Fire Station basement.

However all of that played out, I did an analysis of the "bite" wounds on the child involved and compared them to the documented photographic measurements of Phineas' jaw and dental structure. An associate of mine, Dr. Ken Cohrn (who is a forensic odontologist with long experience dealing with human remains identification) also did an analysis. And guess what? We both agree that Phineas is not responsible for the alleged bite injury-in fact, we both independently exclude Phineas!

Ken's report is with the legal team (as is mine), but since the reports have now been submitted and are a matter of record I am posting mine here for all to read.

Enjoy!

James W. Crosby CBCC-KA Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine * Jacksonville, Florida * 904-476-7655 * canineaggression@gmail.com

30 June 2013

Joseph Simon, Esq.

720 S Ballas Rd

Kirkwood, MO 63122

Dear Mr. Simon:

At your request I have reviewed materials regarding the alleged bite to a 7 year old female by a dog known as Phineas, described as a yellow Labrador type male dog. The alleged bite injury reportedly occurred on 22 June 2012.

The materials I have reviewed include color photographs of the alleged bite injury, color photographs examined and analyzed by Mr. Richard Quindry, color photographs taken of reference materials such as shirt buttons, shirt details, a hospital bracelet, and a series of color photographs taken by you of the dentition and jaw details of the dog known as Phineas on 4 June 2013.

Based on these photographs I have been able to make the following observations, and reach the following conclusions regarding this incident.

 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ACCUSED DOG:

Based on the photographs supplied of the dog Phineas, I can make the following observations;

Phineas’ jaws and teeth appear consistent with an adult, healthy Labrador Retriever-type dog. He possesses full dentition: he shows four full-length canine teeth (two upper, two lower), twelve incisors (six upper, six lower), and at least twelve pre-molars (visible in photographs - six upper-three to a side, six lower, three to a side). This is common dentition for domestic dogs. The canine teeth are unbroken and in common configuration-uppers falling slightly outside of alignment with the lowers. The tips of the canine teeth protrude no less than twice the length of the incisors past the overall level of the incisor tips. The tips of all four canine teeth are slightly splayed, the lower canines more pronounced than the uppers.

Phineas’ incisors are slightly irregular. The central lower incisors show tips only slightly above the line of the gum. The second pair of lower incisors are clearly slightly longer than the first or third incisors. In the upper jaw the incisors are clearly defined and separate, with clear points. Phineas is not missing any of the front teeth.

The alignment of Phineas’ lower incisors is nearly straight across with minimal visible bow to the arch of the bite. His upper incisors are only slightly more bowed.

The line of premolars is, in both jaws, set within a line stretching from the canines to the molars. This gives a dog a slightly “hourglass” shape to the palate and the line of the bite. The front three pre-molars are distinct in the side view photographs. The front-most of the upper pre-molars are located approximately 17 millimeters posterior to the upper canine teeth; the second upper pre-molar is approximately 12 mm to the rear of the first pre-molar; the third upper pre-molar is approximately 16 mm behind the second upper pre-molar. The rear pre-molars are spaced approximately 74 mm apart across the width of the mouth. The lower pre-molars are similarly located at distances of 28, 12, and 13 mm respectively posterior to the lower canines.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE ALLEGED BITE INJURY PHOTOGRAPH:

The photograph provided is a color photo of what appears to be the side and front of a human child. If we orient the photograph so that the visible size tag of the red shirt worn by the pictured person is to the upper right-hand corner of the photograph, the alleged bite injury is oriented to the viewer’s upper right to lower left. The marks visible appear to be clear bruising on human flesh, mostly reddish to purple in color. The shape of the marking is an elongated oval, with clear curvature to both ends of the oval. No bruises or marks appear to be outside the general line of the oval. There appear to be only minor breaks in the surface of the skin, particularly along the upper longer side of the oval, all of which seem to be near the center of the long side. No corresponding breaks in the skin are found on the lower side of the oval.

Exact measurements of the injury are unavailable at this time since no scale was included in the photo. Color photographs of identifiable items that are identified as close or exact copies of the items in the original photos were obtained by your office. The items that I have used to establish my measurements of the alleged bite are: 1: the hospital wrist band worn by the victim in several of the photographs and 2: the large pearl-colored button at the top of the victim’s aqua-colored shirt, as seen in the photographs. Both of these items have been measured and documented and both of these items appear to be parallel to the camera plane in the victim photographs presented, allowing their use as a measuring standard.

MEASURING PROCEDURE:

As above noted, I used the pearl-colored button and the hospital wrist band as constant measuring standards in order to extrapolate the measurements of the alleged bite wound. In other photographs provided by your office I was able to determine that the diameter of the button was 8 mm. Although the button is positioned slightly behind the plane of the alleged bite in the photograph, this difference is minimal and would have the effect of making the alleged bite slightly smaller than the comparison dimensions. The width of the white markable section of the hospital wrist band is 19 mm, top to bottom. These were used as standards for comparison.

I then proceeded to open the photos of the alleged bite, including the photo provided of the victim showing both the button and the hospital band clearly. Using that photo I measured the button and the white band area in the photo viewing software Gimp. In Gimp I measured the button and the band in pixels. Pixel size is consistent within a single photograph, and as such the number of pixels across a measured section of a photograph in the same plane and at the same approximate distance from the focal plane of the camera will be the same. The button measured 28 pixels across the diameter. The white section of the hospital band measured 66 pixels across. Giving the known, measured size of the button and band, we can establish a scale of millimeters that is consistent within 0.5 pixels.

Using this as a comparison scale, I then measured the distance between the first and third clearly visible apparent breaks in the victim’s skin that are angles lower left to upper right in the photo. These marks are clearly delineated and are in the same plane, and same distance from the camera focal plane, as both the button and the wrist band. This should provide a solid measurement with minimal distortion.

The measurement across the centers of the three apparent skin breaks was found to be 9.03 mm (31.4 pixels). I then used this distance to measure the identifying marks and dimensions of the alleged bite in other close-up photos as the distance between these clear marks was within the alleged bite, in the same plane as the alleged bite image, and constant in all photos provided. These measurements were then compared to the photographically documented measurements of the accused dog Phineas’ jaw and dentition.

Description                                                            “Bite”           Phineas

Distance across upper canine teeth	29.9mm	50.0mm
Distance across lower canine teeth	18.63mm	43.0mm
Widest point upper jaw	29.9mm	74.0mm
Widest point lower jaw	31.6mm	not taken
Upper left incisors #1 to 3	10.16mm	16.0mm
Pre-molars left upper #1 to 3	9.03mm	29.0mm

CONCLUSIONS:

After comparing the photo of the alleged bite injury and the photos of the teeth identified as belonging to Phineas, I can render the following opinion:

1)   The alleged bite injury is significantly smaller, both in length and in depth, than the bite likely to be caused by a dog jaw most closely resembling that of Phineas. The bite measures a maximum width of 31.6mm (lower jaw engagement on victim). Phineas’ jaw shows a maximum width of 74.0mm, more than twice the size of the exhibited bite. Phineas’ upper canine teeth are distinct and span a distance of 50.0mm, nearly two times the span of the most likely canine tooth contact points on the exhibited bite. The small puncture wound visible in the photograph (at approximately the one o’clock position on the bite if the bite, oriented vertically, is regarded as similar to a clock face) was used as a measuring point in this analysis and helps confirm the fact that the alleged bite injury is smaller than the verified measurements of Phineas’ bite profile.

2)   The spacing between the skin break marks that could have been caused by Phineas’ pre-molars are too closely spaced together (9.03mm in the exhibited bite vs. 29.0mm for Phineas) and are located too close to the front of the bite (approximately 2cm to the front of the “bite” arch vs. approximately 3 cm to the canines, which are significantly posterior to the front arch of the jaw) to have been made by Phineas.

3)   If the alleged injury had indeed been caused by Phineas, the force necessary to cause the clear, distinct bruising would have definitely caused full impact with, and penetration by, Phineas’ canine teeth, leaving clear and unmistakable puncture wounds corresponding to the location of Phineas’ canine teeth. These canine puncture wounds are not evidenced in the photographs. The location of the single apparent puncture visible in the photographs located towards the upper-right of the photo image is not consistent with the dental structure of Phineas.

4)   The arch of the alleged bite injury does not match that of Phineas: Phineas’ lower incisors are almost in a straight line. Both front lines of the alleged bite are clearly arched. The contour of the alleged bite shown is not consistent with Phineas’ dental structure. In the thousands of known dog bites I have personally examined the curvature of a typical dog bite is not consistent with the images shown. If indeed this is a photo of a dog bite it must certainly be from a jaw of different shape from that of Phineas.

5)   The clear spacing between the Phineas’ canine teeth and his premolars is missing in the alleged bite injury bruising.

Although the alleged bite bruising is not clear enough, or distinct enough, to make a positive identification as to the cause of the alleged bite injury, there is sufficient conflict in the measured evidence and physical appearance of the alleged bite bruising and the jaw of the dog Phineas that I can reasonably exclude Phineas, to a degree of scientific certainty, as having been the source of this bruising injury.

Respectfully submitted.

James W. Crosby

With love and training, group hopes former fighting pit bulls can become adoptable pets | jacksonville.com

A quick side trip here.....working with former fighting dogs to try and give them a second chance at life. Maybe we, as humans, can re-earn their trust and faith. Click here for the link to the Jacksonville Times Union article.

Join me in Smerillo, Fermo, Italy June 15th and 16th, 2013 for my two day seminar on dog bites, dog aggression. behavior, and fatal bite investigations. Buon Giorno Italy!

Dog evaluations-a quick side step

Currently I have several cases where I have been asked to come in as an independant evaluator and investigate dog related incidents. My cases usually center around a dog that is alleged to be Dangerous or involved in a bite. In the past these have included the Philadelphia Four, Helo the Husky, and Memphis in New Jersey. Some of these involved dogs from serious and/or fatal attacks; some dogs have just been judged on their appearence, like poor Lennox in Belfast.

I want to clarify what I do and what is involved, since most people really have no idea. The most common category of investigations I do involve bites or attacks, often with fatal results. I do not go into a situation to "save the dog"-or to condemn the dog. I go in with the intention of fairly and objectively examining the dog(s) and giving back a report as to the behavior I observe, both good and bad. I look at the reported situation that precipitated the action, whatever it is, and look with (hopefully) clear eyes at the whole incident-statements, injuries, physical evidence-the whole banana. I then try and use my experience and knowledge of dog behavior to look for contributing causes and how the situation got so bad. It is my experience that almost every bite or dangerous encounter, in some way, makes sense to the dog. That sense is what I am looking for, and that is what I try and represent to the humans. I make recommendations based on the individual dog, the individual incident, and whether the dog's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Helo the Husky was a prime example of this. My investigation raised serious questions as to whether Helo participated at all in the attack, and disclosed that other dogs present and (based on statements by persons at the scene) more likely to have committed the offense were never examined.

I apply the same procedure in civil consultation cases, cases where either the dog owner or the bite victim (yes, I do work for either side) retain me to give an opinion in the case.

Other cases I get called on involve general evaluation of a dog or group of dogs that have been labelled and are at risk simply due to the kind of dog they are, or what people think they might do.

Might is the key word here.

What a dog might do and evaluations of behavior outside a critical incident is a bigger subject I want to get into on another day. Prediction, whether it is from behavior evaluation, personality testing, or Tarot cards is a whole 'nother set of problems. Today I want to focus on a basic investigation, a response to a specific incident.

Let's use an example (people love examples) of a common kind of case that I get called on. This is not any particular case-the identities and details have been changed to protect...whomever. This is a composite of typical cases, so don't get excited that I am blaming, or insulting, or anything, any particular person or situation.

I get called because little toddler Rodney has been bitten in the face. Media reports are all over this, because Rodney is a cute little kid and has what appear to be massive facial injuries. We see him in the hospital with Mom, stitches where there aren't bandages, sadly sucking on a Popsicle while Mom describes the horrors.  Rodney is bona fidely injured-no question.

With me so far?

I get called-maybe Rodney's parents, maybe the agency investigating, maybe interested advocates, maybe an attorney. I am tasked to see what happened, why it happened, if the vicious dog should be destroyed, how much Rodney should collect from the dog's owner (if it wasn't Mom and Dad's dog). Whatever the human purpose, I am investigating.

The investigation starts with an account of what happened. Typically, we start somewhere around "Rodney was playing quietly and the dog snapped!" Sorry, that is not enough information. I need to know exactly whatt happened in the absolute seconds before the incident, not just a general account.

So I dig, and prod, and back up, and dig some more and a more detailed story comes out. "Rodney, who is a toddler, crawled up to the dog, a dog familiar to Rodney and typically well behaved and calm. Rodney reached out to the left side of the dog's head to pat the dog. Suddenly the dog swung sharply towards Rodney and bit him one time in the face. The dog pulled back, Rodney's Mom grabbed the baby and pulled him away, the family yelled at the dog and sent him running outside into the yard, and when Animal Control got there they put the dog on a pole and put him in the truck. Meanwhile, everyone freaked out since there was so much blood."

Now we have some information. My next stop is to check the actual wounds based on the medical reports and, if I am luck, some closeup photos taken before treatment was started at the hospital. First, I have to look past the treatment plan; I don't care how the doctors fix Rodney's face, how many sutures, how much surgery there is to come. I want quantifiable information-how many bites, how many holes, how deep, is there tearing of skin and in which direction? I want the specifics.

What I find is that there are three clear punctures, under Rodney's eye and on his cheek. Two are relatively deep, and there is significant tearing of the facial flesh, all in the same direction, which gave little Rodney two open lacerations extending from just below eye level to nearly his chin. Tough injury for a cute little guy!

Now comes the fun. I go meet Buck, the evil mauler. Buck is sitting in a cage at Animal Control, with a big label on the cage saying DANGER BITE CASE!. I have to sign a bunch of releases that say if I get mauled and turned into Buck's next dinner I absolve anyone and everyone from everything ranging from bite injuries to metereorite explosion over a Russian city. And Buck and I begin to talk. We have a conversation. No, I don't start whispering to him. No, I don't care if my spirit is centered or if my Wa is composed. We simply talk-in dog terms. I watch his responses, and he watches mine.

Buck has probably spent a few days at least in the kennel with strangers acting strangely. They are tense, keep well away from him; sometimes they haven't even been allowed to touch the "vicious dog" and have kind of pushed his food and water through the kennel fence. Maybe they have had to operate completely behind separating guillotine doors. In any case Buck is a little freaked.

We build a temporary working relationship and I get hands on Buck. We move around a bit and I put him through my evaluation. In the course of the evaluation I notice that when I approach Buck's head with my hand gently, he shies slightly away and gives me disengagement signals. He tells me he is not comfortable with me touching his head, particularly the left side. This is the side little Rodney went to pet. I look as closely as I can and see--a small amount of crusty blood just inside the ear. I approach the ear closer and Buck gives me signs "Don't Touch My Ear!".

I talk to the Vet. We, together, sedate Buck a bit, muzzle him for all of our protection, and find he has a raging ear infection. His inner ear is red, tissue is swollen, and IT HURTS!

Now we have a picture that makes sense. Little Rodney came up to Buck, nothing unusual. Buck had a severe, painful ear infection that little Rodney could not either know about or understand. Rodney reached up and grabbed, in all innocence, Buck's painful ear. Buck responded like a dog in pain-he bit the closest target (Rodney's face) that was involved in causing him pain to make the pain stop. He only bit once because his bite made the hurting thing (Rodney) pull back. Buck is a big dog, so his canine teeth are relatively long. Rodney is a little kid, so his facial tissue is relatively shallow. When Buck engaged-bit-Rodney's face, both he and Rodney pulled away from each other. The two bodies pulling apart while teeth were still partially engaged with flesh caused the fragile flesh to rip. Rodney gets a pair of big tears across his face. Buck gets sent to the pound.

Buck's behavior was not vicious-it was appropriate for a dog in pain.

Is my investigation here condemning-or apologising for-Buck?

No.

Buck acted like a dog. Rodney acted like a toddler. No more, no less. Both behaved appropriately, based on the facts of the situation.

I looked at the situation, dug into the sequence of events, and found out what happened. Someone is probably going to be unhappy with my findings-perhaps Rodney's parents, perhaps Animal Services, almost certainly a significant portion of the public who want revenge for the "horrible mauling" of the poor innocent child. But that is the nature of what I do. I am not there to make anyone, much less everyone, happy.

So back to the initial question-what do I do? What is my (granted self-defined) job description? I investigate dog-related injuries and attacks to find out three things: what happened; if possible, why; and how did the incident make sense to the dog based on my examination of the event, evaluation of the dog, and understanding of how a dog works. If in my investigation I find behavioral conditions that have gone unaddressed, or maybe encouraged, by humans, then so much the better for making someone responsible.  But understanding a dog, how they perceive the world, and how they react is not apology. Or condemnation. It is assessing and describing what is.

Dogs, Police, and Use of Force-part 2 of 4

As I mentioned last time I have broken up my posts on conflicts between Police Officers and dogs into three parts. Last time we talked about a very limited set of circumstances, primarily high-risk raids where there are potentially-or for sure-armed bad guys that probably have not been the most responsible dog owners. These cases are rare, and no one should think that procedures used in these radical situations to protect human lives should be the norm in day to day encounters. They are worst case scenarios. I'm not going to dissect all the potential causes of such actions (Are all drug dealers really violent? Is the "war on  drugs" effective?) as these questions are far bigger than this column and deserve long, hard discussion.

That post was an overview of the minority of cases. Most of the negative encounters we hear about, most of the cases involving use of deadly force by Law Enforcement these days, are centered around much lower risk, day in and day out encounters. Here is where positive intervention, training, and prevention strategies can make the most difference.

Public Safety and Low Risk Encounters are probably the most common cases where Police Officers and pets come into conflict. Let's break these two down into their components first.

Public Safety cases are, obviously, cases where the Police have been called because someone sees an animal, most likely a dog, and most likely running at large, that they perceive is a threat to themselves or others. There are two keys here that we need to note: the animal is at large and the reporting person perceives the animal to be at risk.

Low Risk Encounters are those where Police Officers come across dogs in the course of doing something else. These animals are most often not at large but are on their own property. There is no reporting person here-the Officer is the person directly involved in the contact-and the Officer is the one directly perceiving the dog's behavior.

Now, there are significant differences in the two kinds of cases, but there are several commonalities that we need to recognize. The first common quantity is this: WHY ARE YOU THERE?  What is the reason the officer is coming in contact with the dog, and what is the ultimate purpose of the contact?

In Public Safety encounters it seems to be pretty clear-the officer has been called to "protect the public". But protect who from exactly what? Is it to keep a charging dog from ravaging a schoolyard of kindergarten students, or is the goal a bit fuzzy? Is this a frightened dog trying to get home? Is this an injured dog that is reacting from the pain and fear of being hit by a car? Sure, the dog is at large-and that is a human failure. The human(s) responsible for the dog being uncontrolled should be held responsible for their actions-or lack of action. But is the dog really a threat-and as perceived by whom? Perhaps the goal here is really to stop the dog from running at large, and in doing so keep the public, and the dog safe.

Let's set the stage with an example. A police officer is dispatched to a dog running at large that is alleged to be "vicious". The officer gets on scene and indeed sees a dog running loose. Say it's even a big dog. The complainant comes up and tells the officer "The dog charged at me! Get rid of it!" The person continues to make excited statements that the dog is a danger, might bite someone, could kill all the children in the town...you get the picture.

So our faithful officer chases after the dog. The dog gets backed up against a corner. The officer approaches and the dog growls, baring its teeth. The officer now perceives a threat to himself, and with the excited allegations of the original complainant, draws his weapon, carefully checks for a safe backdrop, and when the dog again lunges towards him he fires once and kills the dog.

Simple, right? Wrong. Lets look at this from the dog's point of view.

The dog is a pet, licensed and tagged, that has escaped from his back yard because his owners have failed to secure the gate-or maybe the cable TV guy left it ajar. The dog follows his nose, meanders around the neighborhood, and looses track of where he is. He comes around a corner and sees something attractive (Squirrel!) and runs for it. Unfortunately, this dog has no experience with traffic and gets clipped by a car going past. The dog is now mildly hurt and frightened. He runs blindly. Running he rounds a corner and is confronted by a stranger (our trusty complainant). The dog startles, barks, and backs off from the scary person. Our complainant, not an experienced dog person, interprets the dog's sudden approach and bark as a "vicious attack" and calls it in.

The officer gets there, spots the dog, and gives chase. Now the dog is being chased by a new stranger, probably yelling, and freaking him out. So he runs, and tries to find-refuge, home, anywhere but where he is. The officer follows and the dog winds up cornered by this stranger. So the dog does the only thing he is hardwired to do-he backs up and gives clear signals in dog terms "You are scaring me! I am hurt and want to go home! Back off! I don't want to fight but I will if you push me!" The officer pushes forward again and the dog lunges, looking for a way out. He just wants to escape to safety and go home. A shot is fired and the dog is dead.

You may say "Well, that is all good but you set this up to make the cop the bad guy." Sorry, but no. This sort of conflict happens all of the time. And I am not saying the police officer was bad-he just didn't see the situation the same way the dog did. He probably didn't have the training to recognize the signals the dog was giving, and didn't have enough knowledge of dog behavior to understand what was really happening. He saw exactly what he had been prepared-even briefly-by the complainant to see.

This is a situation that we, as police officers, have to face every day with human subjects. We are told by one party that the other person is bad, evil, violent, etc. They want us to proceed on their information, and often that information is deliberately slanted to favor their position. We are trained extensively to be cautious of this-we are told "There are three sides to every case: person 1's story, person 2's story, and the truth."

In alleged public safety conflicts we have to bear the same in mind. We don't know if our complainant was bitten badly as a child and has emotional aftereffects of that incident. The person may just not like dogs. The person may have what they feel are valid concerns because they may not have extensive experience with dogs. Or the dog may in fact be nasty.

But we have to return to the question: why is the officer there? To protect the public, right? So what strategies are available, and how many did the officer try before proceeding to lethal force?

In this case there were numerous possibilities, none of which the officer took advantage of. Protecting others means isolating the danger from potential victims, in this case the loose dog. How can we do that?

First, use situational awareness. What is that? Look around. Pay attention to details. In this sort of case, what does the dog look like? Is he relatively clean? Does he have a collar and tags? Maybe this is a pet rather than a long-term stray. If so, the dog is likely to have a positive relationship with at least some people. Try letting the conflict de-escalate. If the dog is in an area where there is room to back off, do so. Stop chasing. Slow down. There is no hurry.

If the dog looks like a pet, try getting the dog to come up. Relax your posture, present a less threatening demeanor, and for crying out loud STOP YELLING.

Pets often like riding in the car. If you are driving a patrol car you likely have a cage in the back. Try opening the back door and then get away from the car to let the dog have a clear path to the open door. Try saying "Let's go for a ride!" Lots of dogs love rides. Once the dog is in the back seat the conflict is over-you now have a controlled situation where you-or Animal Control, or a Vet, or even the owner, can safely remove the dog.

Try an open can of dog food to attract, and calm the dog. Even better a can of cat food. Dogs love cat food. Stinky, nasty cat food. Toss the food near the dog to make friends. Maybe even into your car. Just remember to get the little cans with the pull tabs on top-this is no time to look for a can opener.

If the dog is backed into an enclosed area, use that to your advantage. Pull you car across the opening (and then maybe open the back door). Is there a sidewalk table, or maybe one of those sign twirlers? Temporarily appropriate the table or sign to contain the dog, keeping only minimum pressure on him. Improvise with what you have. Let the dog retreat and calm down. Is the dog in front of an open garage? THEN CLOSE THE GARAGE DOOR!  Even if the dog doesn't live there you have him contained. You can then safely contact the property owner or resident at your leisure. If the dog damages something in the garage, so what? Dog owners are responsible, in most jurisdictions, for any damage their dog causes. The report for chewing up someone's bicycle is a lot easier than the paperwork-and extended drama-of using deadly force.

Sure, someone is always going to come up with a "But I did that and it didn't work..." There's always one in every crowd. And honestly, every situation is different, and I can't give "What if" responses for everything.

But I can give you solid strategies to apply across the board:

1) Try and look at what is really happening-don't proceed with only one account of the situation. Pay attention-use your eyes and ears-use situational awareness.
2) Try and understand from the dog's point of view what he may be seeing and use that in your favor. Information is strength. Try and reduce the stress the dog may be feeling and allow him to deescalate his responses to threats he perceives.
3) Remember the mantra of the military special units: IMPROVISE, ADAPT, OVERCOME. You probably don't have access to the perfect tools when you need them, but you do have access to the most important tool you can have-your brain. Use it.
4) Remember why you are there. Your assignment is probably not search and destroy. Your job is to contain the dog while keeping others safe. Look to handle the real problem. Remember you are there to drain the swamp.
5) Work with your Animal Control or shelter personnel. Your immediate job is containment and separation of the public and the dog. Let Animal Control deal with the capture. That is what they are trained to do, and they honestly probably do it better than you. Most Animal Control Officer are unarmed, so they have learned ways to take in far more difficult animals in more circumstances without resorting to deadly force. Let them do their jobs.

You may have noticed I changed the title of this to part 2 of 4 instead of 3. This has run longer than I expected, so I am going to break here. I'll be back-quicker this time-with Low Risk Encounters next time.

Dogs, Police, and Use of Force-Part 1 of 3

It seems that lately I can't open my inbox without a note of one kind or another about a Police Officer using deadly force against a dog. Loose dogs, pet dogs, big dogs, little dogs-dogs charging, barking, running away or allegedly simply standing there. Is this on the rise? Is there an epidemic of the use of deadly force against pets? I am not convinced either way-I suspect that is may be a result of the speed of, and breadth by which these stories are spread due to social media and citizen journalists, bypassing mainstream avenues-but the jury is still out. The problem is, these cases are gaining a great amount of attention, not just here in the US but across a surprisingly global audience. So I want to take a few minutes of your time and talk about the issue, the perceptions, and possible solutions to the perceived problem.

First off: full disclosure time. I am a retired Police Lieutenant. I served 22 years with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Jacksonville, Florida. I never shot a dog during my career. I am biased-in most cases I will go out of my way to defend a brother Officer, even if I may have personal misgivings that the incident could have been handled better. I understand the stresses, the pressure, and the need for immediate decision making in critical incidents. I also have no patience for bad cops. I am not here to criticize, or defend anyone. I want to look at contacts between officers and pets and try to get both the pets and the officers home in one, safe package.

With that out of the way let's look at the problem. How do we reduce conflict between dogs and Police Officers? In what situations are these conflicts occurring, and what tools do we have to reduce these incidents? Where does responsibility lie?

There are several general categories of contact between police and dogs that seem to encompass most of the situations. I am going to break them into groups: High-Risk encounters; Emergency responses; Public Safety encounters; Low Risk encounters; Seizures; and Nuisance encounters.

High-Risk encounters are the easiest to classify, and perhaps the clearest of the bunch for us to respond to. These are the drug and violent crime raids. SWAT or another unit is making a fast, forcible entry into dangerous territory. The bad guys are likely armed, and likely have little to lose by resisting. The dogs in these situations are potential weapons. The officers will likely also be confronted by humans bearing other weapons, like firearms. The potential for officer injury or death is high. No one in this situation has the time to conduct a lengthy negotiation with a hostile animal, even if that animal is acting aggressively due to mistreatment or fear. Perhaps I am a speciest, but human safety comes first. That said, a High-Risk situation is not a free ticket to blast away at any animals present, any more than it is a free ride to shoot any humans out of hand (we will leave terrorist encounters out of this equation). There are tools that can be used to reduce risk from animals that are quick and reasonable.

The best of those tools is information. No one raids a location without at least some advance intelligence about the location and the potential occupants. Pre-raid surveillance should include establishing whether there are animals present, and whether those animals seem to present a valid threat. If the intelligence establishes that the bad guy has trained, aggressive dogs that are little more than four-legged weapons those dogs are a clear threat. On the other hand, a hound dog that spends his days hanging out on the front porch, probably not so much. Either way, the presence of the animals has been noted, and contingency plans can be put in place. Frankly, if my intelligence said the dogs were trained to attack I would be more proactive in removing the threat.

In some cases this degree of information may not be present-yet there are still indicators. Are there dogs chained up? Can you get past them without releasing them? Are there less lethal methods, such as OC spray, that can be rapidly deployed to deter or temporarily disable the dogs while still allowing the officers to respond safely to the more likely human threat? Can the entry team, and the suspects, be isolated quickly and safely from the dogs? Can the dogs simply be taken out of the equation?

These are High-Risk situations, and as such there are clear limits to the amount of time and effort that can be devoted to animals during entry and securing the scene. But most of the situations in which animals and Police come into conflict are not High-Risk encounters.

Second on my list is Emergency Response. These cases are where a human is in immediate danger or has been injured and a dog is "protecting" the victim. These are survival situations. If the dog is not removed quickly a human may die. These, like High-Risk encounters, don't give a responding officer much time. Other emergency responders, like medical services, may be on scene and trying to get to the victim. These situations are touchy in that the dog is doing what it is supposed to do-protecting its owner. Less lethal alternatives should be on the front burner here. The dog doesn't understand that the strangers are there to help. Time is of the essence, but compassion for both the human victim and the dog is a clear consideration.

Of course if the dog is the source of the injury, or reasonably appears  to be the source of the injury, the game is changed. The dog must be removed before doing more damage, and the person's injuries addressed. Even here deadly force is not necessarily the first choice. Depending on the positioning of the dog and victim, shooting the dog may present a clear danger to the victim. Disengaging the dog is the first priority, but sacrificing the victim in the process, or even adding to the victim's injuries, is not an option. For evidence I personally prefer the dog in such a case be kept alive if possible, but human safety reigns supreme. Still, initial disengagement of the dog may better proceed using less lethal options, if for nothing more than separation of victim and target for a clear shot, with a safe(r) backdrop.

One factor to be considered in cases where the dog is the source, or apparent source, of the injury/threat is physical evidence. A dog destroyed as a result of a serious or life threatening attack is evidence, possibly of a crime. We do not casually destroy evidence. Evidence is what we need to hold a human, often the owner, responsible for their actions, or lack of action. In the rare case that a dog must be destroyed on scene for immediate safety, any deadly force (gunshot) deployed should be to the dog's center of mass-the middle of its body. Head shots are not ideal-not only will the gunshot likely damage the dog's jaws, a potentially critical piece of evidence, but the head of a dog is a difficult target to hit. Imagine firing at a grapefruit bouncing down the street. Additionally, anyone who has examined the skull of a large dog will tell you that the skull is a very thick chunk of bone, with lots of angled surfaces. Even a police duty round may have trouble penetrating, especially if it hits at an odd angle or the head is moving away at the moment of impact. In an emergency, just like when defending against people, body shots are the most reasonable and reliable.

I would remind all readers that the purpose of police use of force, particularly deadly force, is not to "shoot to kill". The justification for use of deadly force is to remove a credible and immediate threat-no more. If, for instance, I am confronted by an armed subject, I am not authorized to "shoot to kill". I am only lawfully allowed to shoot until the threat is removed. Thus, if I fire once, miss, and the bad guy drops his weapon (been there) I have to hold my fire. I can't "finish him off", no matter how much I might want to. The legal cause is suddenly no longer valid. If I shoot a person once and they fall and surrender, or can't continue the assault, then the incident is over. If I shoot again I have violated the law and used excessive force.

I would suggest that Officers who have to deploy lethal force against dogs take the same factors into consideration-you are shooting to remove the threat. If the first shot takes the dog down and he is unable to re-engage, the incident is over. The next proper step is to contact Animal Control or whomever is responsible for providing, in your jurisdiction, emergency care for a wounded animal. A decision to "finish him off" or to "euthanize" such an animal should be left to a Veterinarian and the owner. It is not the responsibility of the Police to determine the appropriateness of veterinary care-nor are they trained to do so.

Next time: Part 2; Public Safety and Low Risk encounters.

UK Seminar April 2013-Come On Over!

Talk about a great way to spend part of my Spring!  On April 8th and 9th, 2013, I will have the distinct pleasure of going to England and giving a two-day seminar in Cambridgeshire outside Huntingdon at Wood Green, a facility run by and serving The Animals Charity in the UK. The seminar is being hosted by Dog Psyche UK-the direct link is here: http://dogpsyche.webs.com/jim-crosby-seminar-2 

Although a general outline of the seminar is on the link, I have been asked for more details. Is this going to be worthwhile? (Geez, I hope so!). What can I learn? And honestly, who in the world is Jim Crosby to be telling me what to do?

Well, let's address the last question first. I am not coming to England to tell anyone what to do-nor am I going to tell anyone that they are "doing it wrong". To do either of these would require an enormous amount of arrogance. It is not my place to tell anyone what to do or how to do their job. It is not my place to tell anyone they are right or wrong. More to the point, I do not have the secret key, "The Way" to do anything, be it dog training, case investigation, evidence evaluation, or anything else. I don't have a secret stance, or mystical merging of energy, or any other drivel.

What I do have is experience in a specific field that I want to share with people; trainers, Police Officers, behaviorists, Animal Control personnel, rescues, SPCA staff, volunteers, owners, and anyone else who wants to listen. My experience involves encounters with dogs that are both normal and extraordinary. I have dealt with dogs that have been well behaved; poorly socialized and frightened; friendly and exuberant; and who have killed humans. Dogs that have presented some unique challenges and have led me to learn new skills, and sharpen and adapt those I already had to new uses.

So what is the course, and what can one learn by coming?  The seminar revolves around serious and fatal dog-human interactions, but the tools and skills we will discuss are applicable across a much wider arena.
I'm not going to spill all the beans here (after all, if I did that then there would be no reason for me to come and I would miss a super trip) but let me skim over a few topics.

First off, we are going to talk about aggression in dogs. Is aggression bad? What is aggression and why is it here? What are the uses of aggression, and should your dog have any?

What about biting? What happens to make a dog bite? We are going to discuss the reasons a dog bites, how and why a bite makes sense to a dog, and how we can work with our dogs and other humans to reduce bites. We will talk about quanitfying dog bites, and using classification to impute intent.

We will talk long and deeply about communication. Dog communication, human communication, and how those two can conflict. Can we learn to speak dog? Do we need to have a certain "energy"?

As we work through communication we will also dip into behavioral science. What is behavior, what affects it, and how do we change it? Is behavior cast in stone or can even long term behaviors be changed? How can a dog's past history and experience, even its diet and living conditions, affect behavior?

We are going to then put these blocks together and discuss working with and evaluating dogs that seem to be at risk for dangerous behavior. We will talk about negotiation-and I don't mean negotiating with a solicitor or your local Council: I mean negotiating with a dog. Yes, I negotiate with dogs, especially with dogs that have serious behavior issues. How else could I get a useful, specific and valid evauation of a dog involved in an incident-just watch them through the kennel door? Not me-I feel it is important to be able to establish, even briefly, a negotiated relationship with such an animal based on mutual trust and respect. No threat of force here-these dogs can do serious damage. And my mistake in such a situation may not only result in my injury, but may sign a death warrant for the dog. We need to both come out alive and safe.

While we are talking about evaluation we are going to delve deeper into just that-the uses, abuses, and limitations of behavioral evaluation. What can they tell us, and should a behavior evaluation be the live-or-die test for a dog? How can we then take what we learn in the evaluation(s) and use that information to make recommendations or develop treatment protocols for the dog?

About there we will break for the day. We will probably have the opportunity to get together over a meal and bat around ideas from the day, and maybe tell a few war stories. Share of bit of those "well, the dog I saw was sooooo bad..."

The next day we will jump into investigations and how they can be approached by Police Officers, Animal Control Officer, trainers and behaviorists, and anyone else who is affected by a dog-related case. Not that Police and Animal Control Officers don't know how to investigate-but I have learned a few things from trial and error, and from others, that can help make an investigation even more productive. Dog cases, especially dog related fatalities, contain factors that other cases don't, not limited to the idea that the weapon (dog) is a semi-independant, thinking being with their own agenda and outlook on the world. Fatal dog attacks are homicides-specialized homicides-and have distinct issues that need to be considered.

We will talk evidence. Specific, dog-related evidence. We will talk-and view-crime scenes. We will go over cases I have worked and see the nitty gritty details. We will put evidence, behavioral science, and evaluation together to build a picture of the incident-what really happened and perhaps even why.  We will discuss the potential role of the trainer or behaviorist in helping Police intepret events and place cause where it belongs. We will discuss blame versus responsibility and the need to assign responsibility properly. We will talk about other crimes, both revealed by the incident and perhaps crimes the perpetrator(s) are using the dog incident to conceal.

And by the end of the day we will discuss the nature of Dangerous Dogs, the classification of dogs as Dangerous, and varying points and attitudes towards breed regulation. Are the laws we have achieving what we want, or can we augment or adapt those laws to get better results with less effort? What does the public deserve, and what do the dogs deserve? What is the science behind appearence and behavior, and how interrelated are they?

After all that I will certainly be worn out-and I hope that each person attending will have both received and contributed to the topics. I intend this to be a highly interactive seminar. I want those attending to share information, share contact information, and share their outlook on the overall issues behind dogs and public safety to develop stronger working relationships. I hope that I will have been able to shed a small light into some murky corners, while taking back my share of learning from the attendees.

Where is this held again?

Wood Green, The Animals Charity
King's Bush Farm
London Road
Godmanchester
Cambridgeshire
PE29 2NH

(I just love English addresses. Ours are so boring. Imagine having a house with a name!)

Please join me, and hopefully a host of others, at Wood Green April 8th and 9th. Let's talk dogs.