Dog Brothers Public Forum

http://www.officer.com/news/10847914/gunman-kills-three-injures-two-in-swiss-village?utm_source=Officer.com+Newsday+E-Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS121228003

Quote from: Robertlk808 on January 02, 2013, 12:28:54 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2013, 02:30:01 PM

http://www.inquisitr.com/463526/al-sharpton-knife-control-will-follow-gun-control-legislation-video/

Ah I see you have already posted something, well here is a follow up then.

Al Sharpton: Next Up, Knife Control
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-sharpton-next-up-knife-control/

  'Cocaine is a helluva drug' -Al Sharpton (said to undercover agents during a sting)

I'm not worried about pocket knives, i'd be more worried about Al calling me an 'interloper' and sending one of his thugs in to burn my store down with me in it........Seems to be the way he does business.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/sharpton-and-rosemond-658234

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58469,00.html

This is from the NY Times (for which my nickname is Pravda On The Hudson: POTH) so caveat lector:
==============

PHOENIX — Arizona used to be a knife carrier’s nightmare, with a patchwork of local laws that forced those inclined to strap Buck knives or other sharp objects to their belts to tread carefully as they moved from Phoenix (no knives except pocketknives) to Tempe (no knives at all) to Tucson (no knives on library grounds).

D’Alton Holder, a longtime knife maker, said, “It’s ridiculous to talk about the size of the knife as if that makes a difference.”
But that changed earlier this year when Arizona made its Legislature the sole arbiter of knife regulations. And because of loose restrictions on weapons here, Arizona is now considered a knife carrier’s dream, a place where everything from a samurai sword to a switchblade can be carried without a quibble.

Arizona’s transformation, and the recent lifting of a ban on switchblades, stilettos, dirks and daggers in New Hampshire, has given new life to the knife rights lobby, the little-known cousin of the more politically potent gun rights movement. Its vision is a knife-friendly America, where blades are viewed not as ominous but as tools — the equivalent of sharp-edged screw drivers or hammers — that serve useful purposes and can save lives as well as take them.

Sure, knife fights and knife attacks are a concern. No knife-lover would ever deny that. In fact, Todd Rathner, the lobbyist for Knife Rights Inc., an advocacy group based in Arizona that is now in its third year, was mugged twice in New York City before moving to Tucson, once — “ironically,” he said — at knifepoint.

But the problem is with the knife wielder, not the knife itself, the knife lobby says, sounding very much like those who advocate for gun rights.

In fact, knife advocates contend that the Second Amendment applies to knives as well as guns. They focus their argument elsewhere, though, emphasizing that knives fill so many beneficial roles, from carving Thanksgiving turkeys to whittling, that they do not deserve the bad name they often get.

“People talk about how knives are dangerous, and then they go in the kitchen and they have 50 of them,” said D’Alton Holder, a veteran knife maker who lives in Wickenberg, Ariz. “It’s ridiculous to talk about the size of the knife as if that makes a difference. If you carry a machete that’s three feet long, it’s no more dangerous than any knife. You can do just as much damage with an inch-long blade, even a box cutter.”

As for the pocketknife he carries with him every day, Mr. Holder said: “I use it for everything — to clean my fingernails, to prune a tree or carve, even to eat dinner with. I never think about the knives that I carry or the knives that I make as weapons.”

Jennifer Coffey, the New Hampshire state representative who led the effort to overturn the state’s switchblade ban, is also an emergency medical technician who uses knives to extract people from vehicles after accidents. Even when switchblades were outlawed, there were exceptions for emergency workers and others who might use them on the job, but Ms. Coffey still considered the law outrageous.

“We had certain knives that were illegal, but I could walk down the street with a kitchen knife that I used to carve a turkey and that would be legal,” Ms. Coffey said. “I’d be more scared of a kitchen knife than a switchblade.”

She said switchblade bans were passed in the 1950s because of the menacing use of the knives in movies like “West Side Story” and “Rebel Without a Cause.” Her legislation drew the support of an array of knife-related entities: Knife Rights, a young upstart in knife advocacy; the American Knife and Tool Institute, a group based in Wyoming that represents knife manufacturers, sellers and owners; and publications like Blade, Cutlery News Journal and Knife World.

The effort to lift the ban on switchblades in New Hampshire even won the support of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police.

==========



In Arizona, however, police groups were more circumspect about lifting all of the local knife laws. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the move, saying local jurisdictions ought to set their own knife restrictions. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association remained neutral.

In much of the country, especially in urban areas, knives are still viewed as weapons in need of tight control.
District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. of Manhattan announced in June that his office had pressured retail stores that were selling illegal knives to remove them from their shelves, forfeit profits from the knives made over the last four years and help finance a campaign to educate people against illegal knives.

“What makes these knives so dangerous is the ease with which they can be concealed and brandished,” Mr. Vance said of the illegal switchblades and gravity knives, which require a wrist flip to open instead of a switchblade’s spring, that were bought by undercover agents.

Mr. Vance’s offensive drew the ire of the American Knife and Tool Institute, which issued an “action alert” and offered to assist New York retailers and individuals charged with knife violations with their legal defenses.

The knife lobby similarly rose up in 2009 when the federal Customs and Border Protection agency issued a proposal that would have reclassified many pocketknives and pocket tools as switchblades and thus made them illegal for import or sale across state lines under the 1958 federal Switchblade Act. In the end, Congress intervened and blocked the change.

A case now unfolding in Seattle shows how volatile knives continue to be. A police officer there fatally shot a man in August after, the officer said, he ordered the man several times to drop a knife that he was carrying. But the legitimacy of the shooting has been questioned by the Police Department, partly because the knife, which had a three-inch blade, was found in a closed position near the body of the dead man, who had been using it to carve a piece of wood.

Knife advocates are hoping that, just as Arizona’s immigration law has led to a national debate on that topic, its move to end knife restrictions will lead more states to take up the cause.

“Arizona is now the model when it comes to knives,” said Mr. Rathner, who was a National Rifle Association lobbyist before he switched to knives. “We’re now going to be moving to other states, probably in the Rocky Mountains and the Southeast. There’s probably half a dozen or more places that are ripe for this.”

The discussion of establishing dominance and stories about it being done has made me think of a story and a question for those who own alpha dogs.

I do a good bit of bicycling.  Dogs bark at me all the time while I am riding.  Usually, I ignore them.  Sometimes, they chase.  If they stop at the edge of their 'turf', I ignore them.  If they chase continually and aggressively, I stop and deal with them.  The one time I did not stop it was the one time I have been bitten since I was about 14.  The dog I ignored while it chased and chased for a block was a little old lady's Yipping Rat Purse Chi-annoyah.  Unfortunately, I had to stop for a car at the intersection.  And it left me a couple of nice holes in my calf.  The lady runs up to me to explain her precious is harmless.  And I have to show her the bite marks.  Luckily, it had its shot tags.  I griped at the lady and then went home.  The lesson is one from Musashi:  Pay Attention, even unto trifles.

Now, the question for owners of dogs who like to be dominant and show it?  This one has come up for me from the other side.  I've had dogs come up and try to establish dominance.  I either ignore them as if they did not exist or turn and back them down. if they continue to try to push it.  I've come close but have never been bit while backing a dog down.  On a handful of occasions, I've been a hair's breadth from giving a dog a defensive cuff or leg check. The problems are not with the dogs but their owners.  I've been threatened by more than one owner with violence if I struck their dog.   And then I have to deal with a person as well as a dog.

So, for owners and trainers of those dominant dogs, has anyone considered how to react to their dog attempting to establish dominance one someone who is not willing to be dominated?  Telling the other human to wait for you to get the dog is like telling a lady to wait for the police if threatened or attacked.  It's the exact same logic.  To be clear, we're discussing something moving beyond wooofing phase and is moving into touch and attack.  

I'm just wondering what other's think?  With the exception of that Yipper that was partially my fault because I was arrogantly dismissive and careless of what looked to be a non-threat, I've rarely have any issues with a dog for more than 5 minutes.  Mostly, dogs of all levels will approach and make friends with me after a few minutes.  But I do remember times from my early twenties when that was not the case.  And being threated with violence and firearms from angry owners of dogs that try to control more than their own yard.  You can take the end of the statement about either the owner or the dog.  *grin*

Any thoughts?

Sgt Mac:

I remember reading about that study at the time.

A variation of your tag line:

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick" 

At 10 months (about 90 pounds) I was till taking my second Akita to the dog park.  One day an Irish Wolfhound (about 170, think large hairy Great Dane) that had bullied him when he was 6 months old (about 70 pounds) came in.  Naturally my boy remembered him and his body language told me he was going to settle accounts.  I gave him the stop command but he ignored me.  The fight was over very quickly.  He knocked the Irish Wolfhound across the entire park for about ten seconds with the IW just totally folding mentally.  Finally I caught up to him and grabbed him as the IW ran off.  I picked up up by the scruff of the neck and the loose skin at the base of the tail and carried him across the length of the park and out the gate.  We were clear between each other thereafter.

OTOH my first Akita, Zapata, the one in our logo, was a VERY dominant Akita.  Instead of trying me he dominated a couple of formidable men; one who had gotten on his excrement list by raising his voice to me and then on another occasion violating the dog's personal space (Z. pinned him to the wall by the testicles) and the other a bodybuilder on steroids.  I'm guessing Zapata took the smell of the testosterone to be a challenge so he rose up and put his paws on the guy's shoulders (he was about 5 foot 6 inch and very thick) rumbled in his face and humped him twice--not in a neurotic poodle way, but in a prison way so as to establish dominance.

Not dissing the Security Guy, but I've read/heard that Doormen/Bouncers say if their soft skills have not deescalated the situation and that they have to resort to hard skills then they didn't perform their duties well. Or maybe it was something Dalton/Patrick Swayze said in Road House lol

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 30, 2010, 10:23:00 AM

SG, would you please post this on the DBMAA forum too?

Done.

Sgt.,

A few questions:

1. Does your dept. allow for a fixed blade to be worn on your duty belt? I can imagine the fainting spells those with brass on their collars might have at the sight.

2. You have a retention holster, do you have a retention sheath for the kerambit? The more stuff you wear, the more an opponent has to grab onto in close quarters. Just as it sucks to gets shot with your own gun, getting cut by one's own edged weapon would have to suck too.

3. Why the kerambit vs. other blade designs? http://www.hideawayknife.com/main.php  or http://www.lapolicegear.com/kabarknives.html

Woof All:

One practical suggestion that I have received is to cite the statutory declarations in CA of the right to self-defense.  In other words, the school's declared policy is a violation of state law-- or so my lawyers will say when we sue to school should it ever fcuk with my son's right of self-defense.

Now I mull over whether and if so how to bring this to the school's attention.

TAC!
CD

I disagree completely.  In my opinion, the police and press should be praising this hero.

If I'm treating a pneumothorax I'd want to get some sort of non-permeable membrane (meaning a piece of plastic or similar) over the injury. I'd hope emergent care is available and keep the vic on his back so I can monitor vitals and perform CPR as needed. So much bleeding is described that I'd have to suspect a hemothorax, which basically leaves you SOL in the field as you got to get at the bleeder to do anything, and that's well beyond my skill level.

This assumes it's some sort of thoractic injury, which isn't clear from the post. Whether the dude is bleeding out, into his thoractic cavity, or into his abdomen, sealing the hole, treating for shock, and getting the vic to an ER is the way I'd play it.

if someone with training had been present at this event, and if it is true that group apathy can be counteracted by " calling out an individual" within the rest of the bystanders..... would it have been a good idea to enlist help to subdue the attacker as a group (strength in numbers), or not?
if this man was known to be a LEO and potentially armed, how does one decide whether to act alone or with others?

The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center, a
non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free,
direct-delivery subscription, please visit www.forcesciencenews.com and
click on the registration button. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
info@forcesciencenews.com.
=======================================

In this issue:

I. IS EXCITED DELIRIUM A FAKE CONDITION INVENTED TO WHITEWASH ABUSIVE FORCE?
A CRITICAL LOOK AT NPR'S RECENT REPORTS

II. WHERE TO FIND OUT MORE--IN PERSON--ABOUT HOW FSRC'S UNIQUE RESEARCH CAN
HELP YOU SURVIVE ON THE STREET & IN COURT

III. KICKIN' ASS! DR. BILL LEWINSKI ACHIEVES A COVETED 5TH DEGREE BLACK BELT

=======================================

I. IS EXCITED DELIRIUM A FAKE CONDITION INVENTED TO WHITEWASH ABUSIVE FORCE?
A CRITICAL LOOK AT NPR'S RECENT REPORTS

Two perspectives on law enforcement's role in the violent human meltdown
known as excited delirium faced off on National Public Radio recently, in
broadcasts that have themselves become controversial.

On one side in the 2-program report were 2 police critics, a staff lawyer
with the ACLU and the director of a California "watchdog" group called
PoliceWatch. The lawyer denied that ED is a recognized condition and charged
that police are using the term "as a means of whitewashing" excessive force
and "inappropriate use of control techniques" during arrests. The watchdog
rep claimed that law enforcers want to blame "victims" who are
inappropriately "dying at the hands of officers." She said police have a
responsibility to "make sure" that anyone they take into custody "stays
alive, whatever the condition of the person's brain or body temperature or
their agitated state."

Voices on the other side included a neurology professor from the University
of Miami, the former chief medical examiner for San Antonio, and a senior
corporal from Dallas PD with first-hand experience in trying to control
raging ED subjects. The professor said the condition is "definitely
real...the result of a neurochemical imbalance in the brain." The ME said,
"[T]hese people are dying of an overdose of adrenaline" and insisted that
it's wrong to blame the police. And the cop said, "There's no one thing that
simply describes this. One minute a person is fighting and screaming, the
next minute he's dead."

By the time NPR finished its total of less than 13 minutes of air time on
the subject, emails were flying among followers of the ED issue. One
authority, Chris Lawrence, a Canadian police college instructor, a technical
advisor to the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State
University-Mankato, and a columnist for PoliceOne.com, perhaps sums up the
sentiment of many.

NPR's failure to spotlight this thorny topic in depth for its 26 million
listeners, he believes, served only to "stir the pot" of controversy without
illuminating its many perplexities. "No one in the media presents an
in-depth, knowledgeable discussion of this subject even for an hour,"
Lawrence told Force Science News. "A series of sound bites can't do it
justice. It's too complicated. People are left with the impression that no
one knows what's going on, and that's not to anyone's benefit."

If you missed the NPR programs, which aired on more than 800 stations on
2/26 and 2/27, you can read transcripts and listen to the broadcasts at
www.npr.org. Just conduct an in-site search for "excited delirium" and
you'll get to the appropriate links.

Meanwhile, FSN asked Lawrence, who was not involved in NPR's programming, to
address and expand on some of the more provocative highlights of what was
broadcast.

ASSERTION: In questioning ED as a legitimate phenomenon, rather than
something the police are just making up, the ACLU attorney, Eric Balaban,
said, "I know of no reputable medical organization-certainly not the
American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association-that
recognizes excited delirium as a medical or mental-health condition."

NPR's reporter Laura Sullivan added: "He's right. Excited delirium is not
recognized by professional medical associations, and you won't find it
listed in the chief psychiatric reference book. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police hasn't accepted it either, saying not enough
information is known."

RESPONSE: Descriptions of the symptoms that characterize ED have appeared in
medical literature under various names, including Bell's Mania and fatal
catatonia, for more than a century, Lawrence says. "Excited delirium" is
fairly recent terminology, "but it is not a problem that is new."

The literature search that was made when the Psychiatric Assn. compiled its
latest edition of the 980-page Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV TR, "the chief psychiatric reference book" cited on NPR)
was cut off in 1996, Lawrence says--more than a decade ago.

"If you do an online search today at the website PubMed, provided by the
National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, you'll
find at least 20 articles on ED from professional medical journals," the
vast majority of which were published after the DSM cut-off.

"For the last 10 years, the National Association of Medical Examiners has
said ED is real and has recognized it as a problem. They've published a
position paper that repeatedly references it in the context of cocaine abuse
and, in some cases, the failure of mental patients to take prescribed
psychotropic drugs. This is not something we're making up. Saying it doesn't
exist doesn't contribute to solutions for dealing with it."

[For more details of ED in medical literature, see archives of Lawrence's
columns at www.policeone.com. The NAME position paper was authored by 4 MDs
and a PhD and appeared in The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and
Pathology, Mar. 2004.]

ASSERTION: By blaming ED, authorities in effect "want the victim to be
looked at as the cause of his or her own death," PoliceWatch director Dawn
Edwards charged on NPR. "The bottom line is that these people are dying at
the hands of, or in the custody of, police officers." In her view, it's a
police responsibility to assure that anyone taken into custody "stays alive."

RESPONSE: During one of the broadcasts, the former ME, Dr. Vincent Di Maio,
who has written a textbook on ED, challenged Edwards' position. Civil
liberties groups are wrong in blaming officers for ED deaths, he said. "They
buy into this mode that if somebody dies, somebody's got to be responsible.
And of course it can't be the person who's high on coke and meth," even
though drug abuse appears to be closely associated with many ED episodes.

Lawrence points out that deaths ascribed to ED have occurred even in
hospitals with the most sophisticated medical intervention immediately at
hand. To expect guaranteed life preservation from officers attempting to
deal with an out-of-control offender on the street is wholly unrealistic.

Professionals knowledgeable about ED agree that it needs to be viewed
ultimately as a medical problem, he says. "But this condition is a very
complicated event. It involves multiple body mechanisms. The breakdown of
any one of these by itself could result in death. Even the efforts of a
highly trained physician may not prevent the subject from dying.

"By the time police are called, the ED subject may be deep into mental and
physical distress, possibly at an irreversible intensity. We're dispatching
a first responder who generally has a first aid certificate. He may never
have seen ED before or even recognize what it is. And we're supposed to say,
'Now you handle this very complicated event, with your first-aid skills, and
by the way, we're going to hold you solely responsible if he dies'? How
realistic is that?"

By pointing out certain factors, such as drug usage and mental illness, that
seem commonly associated with ED episodes, Lawrence says, "we're not trying
to blame the 'victim.' We are trying to better understand the person
experiencing excited delirium and to identify things about him that may
assist everyone in helping him to survive."

ASSERTION: NPR's Sullivan stated during the second program that the debate
about ED "becomes more complicated" because TASERs are often involved when
officers try to control physically violent subjects who end up dying. "Civil
liberties groups fear that the diagnosis is being used" not only to "cover
up police abuse" but also to "protect companies like Taser International
from lawsuits," she said. "Taser may have financial reasons to support-and
even encourage-the use of the excited delirium diagnosis."

RESPONSE: In the view of Lawrence, a DT instructor, the deployment of TASERs
is not so diabolical. "Electronic control devices provide a modern, prompt,
humane method of restraint" in many ED situations, he says. "Physical force
and technology that depend on pain compliance tend not to work because these
subjects don't seem to feel pain. Mechanical leverage techniques that lock
up the joints can be difficult to apply because ED people are very, very
strong and they won't let you do it.

"With an ECD, you can cause them to lose control of the muscles that
maintain balance, and they fall down. This can provide a very brief window
of opportunity to quickly get them handcuffed and to secure their legs with
a strap device to minimize kicking and effectively establish some control.
You end up with fewer injuries both to the suspect and to the officers
involved."

The TASER is just the latest scapegoat blamed for causing ED deaths,
Lawrence says. He cites the recent testimony of Dr. Christine Hall, a
Canadian ER physician and ED researcher, at a coroner's inquest into the
death of a psychiatric patient who was TASERed while in a highly agitated
state.

Hall testified that when people in this state died while being restrained by
the police in the 1970s, the blame was often placed on baton use. In the
1980s, it was multiple-officer restraint and "positional asphyxia." In the
1990s, it was pepper spray. Now it's the TASER.

"The blame shifts as tactics and technology change and police critics
continue to look for something other than the condition itself as the cause
of death," Lawrence says.

Whatever the mode, the goal of police intervention, he stresses, is to
control dangerous behavior, to get ED subjects "assessed by someone with
more medical training than a police officer has, and to get him transported
to a place of sophisticated medical treatment. You are not going to get any
medical assistance until control has been established. There's no way around
this point.

"Even if you could drive a doctor to the scene and say, 'You manage this,'
nothing could be done until the subject is stabilized, and stabilization
requires restraint. At some point someone has to take control of the
individual, unless he somehow gets back to reality on his own and says, 'I'm
going to let you help me,' and that's not a very likely development with
people who are dying in excited delirium."

ASSERTION: The ACLU's Balaban expressed concern that the messages police
receive about ED may actually exacerbate confrontations. If officers are
being told in training that ED subjects "have superhuman strength," he
speculated, officers may treat them "as if they are somehow not human,"
leading "officers to escalate situations."

RESPONSE: The fact is, Lawrence says, that the display of extremely abnormal
strength is one of the characteristics that makes a subject who's
experiencing ED so difficult to control.

Indeed, Sr. Cpl. Herb Cotner of Dallas PD, interviewed by NPR, told of ED
manifesting itself by "someone doing pushups with two 150-pound officers on
their back." He described one ED experience in which the subject smashed
through a plate-glass window, fell from a fence, broke his leg several
times--and still walked 2 blocks to fight with police. Another confrontation
involved a handicapped individual who "dragged us across a parking lot."

Lawrence observes: "That may not be the way the ACLU would like it to be,
but the truth is the truth. Officers must be trained for reality."

Next month [4/07] during a 2-day Force Science seminar in London, England,
Lawrence will present a briefing on ED for European police officials and
attorney Bill Everett, also an FSRC Board Member, will speak on managing the
media during high-profile, controversial incidents, such as a death by ED.

The interest abroad in this topic, "indicates that this is a problem that is
international in scope," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of FSRC.
For more information on this program and instructions on how to register for
it, go to: http://www.forcescience.org/training/seminars/

[NOTE: Force Science News has transmitted 9 articles dealing with excited
delirium since this newsletter was founded in 2004. To review them for a
broader understanding of the subject, go to:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/search.html and enter "excited
delirium" in our archival search engine.]

Our thanks to Wayne Schmidt, executive director of Americans for Effective
Law Enforcement, for tipping us about the NPR series.

This video was atrocious.

In my state this would have easilly been a clean case of self defense by the female if she used lethal force, and a good chance a bystandard as well. Means, oppurtunity, intent were all there to seriouslly injure or kill. 

We've seen males ruff up females, generally domestic issues... but this case was an all out Attack-  not a simple argument or slap. After viewing this and contemplating it i have come to the reality that if i do see something similar, a serious attack on a female worker i will have to act. What i would do in the case i am not sure as it will depend on the scenario - possibly throw beer in his face to break his ooda loop, aor take a stool to his leg, aor something more serious to get him to stop the threat.

Possible reasons the witnesses did nothing is that it seemed to overide their ooda loop- sudden and extreme overwhelming violence. The same principles many criminal elements use to immobilize(freeze) victims during crimes such as robbery take overs, home invasions, etc.
Another possible reason could be more blatant as cowardice.

Some other thoughts on this maybe the ramping up most individuals need to come to violence. Few sane and productive citizens can go from 0-100mph at the drop of a pin. The ability to do so borders as sociopathic.
 
comments welcome.