TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

WTR wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:If said intruder managed to get away with a couple of dog bites, they would very likely seek medical attention, dogs bites are a required reporting incident by law, let the BG explain how he got bit!

And his BFF would back him up and say that it was his dog that bit him, while the perp and his friend were playing on the friend's backyard swing set.

Asking responding LEO's to take a swab of the perp's blood from the area of the encounter right after the incident would provide DNA evidence that would require some novel and likely entertaining explanations when defense counsel tries to reconcile it with the friend's dog story.

You assume the PD would be willing to run a DNA sample in such a case. Some cities have a 10 year backlog for DNA testing of rape cases, so I doubt a dog bite would be a priority.

Also, dog bites don't always bleed that profusely. Dog bites may exhibit puncture wounds and lacerations, but they are also crushing injuries. In crushing injuries with penetrating trauma, little tiny capillaries in the tissues are crushed, but they seep, rather than pour blood, and so unless major vessels are affected, clotting can take place before too much blood leaves the body. It is conceivable that there would be no blood evidence at the scene from which to get DNA, because it was soaked into his clothing, but didn't drip onto the ground, or whatever.

Yup, all that's true. As the recipient of a few bites, I can attest that there isn't usually much exterior blood, and the police wouldn't go through the trouble of a DNA analysis unless somebody got very badly hurt or killed.

My DNA collection suggestion was offered with tongue in cheek because the thought of a defense attorney trying to reconcile that with the "bit by the friend's dog" story tickled my warped sense of humor.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:If said intruder managed to get away with a couple of dog bites, they would very likely seek medical attention, dogs bites are a required reporting incident by law, let the BG explain how he got bit!

And his BFF would back him up and say that it was his dog that bit him, while the perp and his friend were playing on the friend's backyard swing set.

Asking responding LEO's to take a swab of the perp's blood from the area of the encounter right after the incident would provide DNA evidence that would require some novel and likely entertaining explanations when defense counsel tries to reconcile it with the friend's dog story.

Excaliber wrote:

C-dub wrote:I would strongly caution against sending your dog(s) outside into the unknown. My two GSDs used to be highly trained to handle stuff like that. They were not police dogs, but it could be argued that in some ways their training was as good or better in various aspects. They were trained to defend under gunfire from a gun with blanks being fired at them as they went for the bite and while biting. They were hit and kicked with sticks and other objects while fighting with the BG and did not give up. My dogs are older know, but even in their prime I would not send them into the unknown. Even the police won't do that most of the time, but sometimes there are no other options.

Unless my dog(s) were already engaged with the BG I wouldn't send them out without me also going as back up or for them to distract the BG so I could take care of him/them. Our dogs are a part of our family and I wouldn't willingly sacrifice them because they won't quit and will fight until they are physically unable.

Although letting dogs out is a viable tactic for locating an intruder, as C-dub points out, it does pose a very high risk to the dogs. This could become the least worst option when the alternative is very high risk to people, but with family pets I agree it is a tactic to be avoided except as a last resort

C-dub wrote:I would strongly caution against sending your dog(s) outside into the unknown. My two GSDs used to be highly trained to handle stuff like that. They were not police dogs, but it could be argued that in some ways their training was as good or better in various aspects. They were trained to defend under gunfire from a gun with blanks being fired at them as they went for the bite and while biting. They were hit and kicked with sticks and other objects while fighting with the BG and did not give up. My dogs are older know, but even in their prime I would not send them into the unknown. Even the police won't do that most of the time, but sometimes there are no other options.

Unless my dog(s) were already engaged with the BG I wouldn't send them out without me also going as back up or for them to distract the BG so I could take care of him/them. Our dogs are a part of our family and I wouldn't willingly sacrifice them because they won't quit and will fight until they are physically unable.

Although letting dogs out is a viable tactic for locating an intruder, it does pose a very high risk to the dogs. This could become the least worst option when the alternative is very high risk to people, but with family pets I agree it is a tactic to be avoided except as a last resort.

flechero wrote:I'll give the trooper the benefit of the doubt- I bet there are facts not in the written story that could be important.

You're right in that news accounts are never complete and are rarely completely accurate. Articles based on initial reports are usually less complete and less accurate than the original. However, with that said, there are lessons to be learned here. The first is that even a highly trained individual can be much more easily successfully attacked outside than inside.

Coming up with the best response is not as simple as it might first appear. As some have pointed out, a farm family faced with an adversary who is stealing livestock or critical equipment in an area where law enforcement response won't get there in time to make a difference is in a very different situation than a suburban homeowner who hears noises outside.

Letting the dogs out from a door away from the intruder's suspected location is a viable tactic that should quickly reveal if there is a problem out there or not and where it is likely to be. They also give an intruder a problem he didn't have before and may inspire him to find another place to be. If things work out this way, it neatly resolves the problem and you simply owe your faithful companions some treats.

If a decision to go outside is made, thought needs to be given to how and where to exit the home. Out of sight, quietly, and well away from the intruder's suspected location is much preferred. Planning needs to include how you will search for the adversary without making a target out of yourself with a flashlight. Keep in mind that there may be multiple adversaries, they may be in different locations, and their night vision will be keen while yours will likely be poor if you have been in a lighted area of the home just before your exit.

Your plan needs to include how those left inside will be protected while you are outside, what you will do if you do encounter the adversary, how you will communicate with persons still inside the home and law enforcement, and what those inside the home will do if you are engaged and downed by the adversary (good guys don't always win).

When you think all this through, staying inside starts to look like a really good idea even for highly trained folks except in the most extreme circumstances.

A Texas trooper reportedly heard noises he thought could indicate an intruder outside trying to get into his home late at night.

Instead of calling local law enforcement, he donned his ballistic vest, grabbed his gun and went outside.

The results reinforce why this tactic is strongly disfavored by those who would like to live to see the following day.

Details here.