Brad Rimmel
Forum Replies Created
-
The body cam footage does not really change my original thoughts. If you look at the totality of the circumstances, you had a slow speed pursuit for a traffic violation. It was OSP’s pursuit, their scene and their suspect. There were several Troopers on the scene and they were engaging the suspect. Time is your ally in those types of situations. Different story if the guy runs, becomes combative or escalates, but that was not the case here. The handler had better options. He could have remained where he was and let OSP control their scene. If he wanted to use the dog as a deterrent, he could have made a tactical approach with the dog on leash, activate the dog on the suspect and most likely gained compliance. Sending the dog from the other side of the median was not the best decision in my opinion. Part of being assigned to a specialized unit like Swat or the K-9 unit is the ability to make sound decisions in rapidly evolving situations.
-
As a former K9 officer, I feel compelled to comment on the video. Even understand that what we are seeing is a very short period of a much longer vehicle pursuit, there is nothing that I see or know about the incident that justifies deployment of the dog under those circumstances. What I see is a very poor handler, with very poor decision-making skills and someone who is unable to act calmly while adrenalized. It’s unfortunate that unskilled handlers like this cause situations that damage the public’s trust in the vast majority of handlers that properly use their dogs with discretion and under appropriate circumstances. I will be very surprised if that officer is not terminated and it is my hope that gentleman is rightly compensated. Plain language, the handler made a HUGE mistake, deserves to lose his dog and job, and Circleville needs to make things right for the gentleman injured.
-
Sorry, I can’t make the Wed livestreams. If that was the critique, however, you nailed it! I wish my timing was that good.
-
Great timing! A lot of folks begin moving the treat toward the dog before the verbalization is complete. You paused and then rewarded. Perfect timing.
-
I agree Art. We choose our battles and for some folks, if you’re not in their echo chamber, they’re simply not interested in having a constructive discussion.
-
Hi Allie.
Looks really good. Are you using handler protection just as a scenario or are you trying to motivate the dog for building aggression through his defensive pack drive? Maybe both? I’m so glad you are doing protection work. I don’t get to chat about these type of issues that often.
Best,
Brad
-
Hello all. Sorry that I am late to the conversation. Since the discussion thus far has been very robust and thoughtful, I’m not sure I can add much that has not already been discussed. That said, just some additional thoughts for consideration.
By establishing a Code of Ethical Conduct, we are acknowledging that integrity and ethical conduct are fundamental to the core values of FSDT and vital to ensuring that those values are displayed in our daily interactions with clients, clients’ dogs, other trainers, and the public. The professionalism and high performance of FSDT is rooted in the highest standards of excellence, accountability, initiative, fairness, and respect. FSDT Certified Dog Technologists are guided by the simple principle to do “What is Right” for their clients and the clients’ dogs. Doing “What is Right” focuses on building a strong and mutually beneficial relationship between owner and dog by applying the following Standards of Practice:
1. Safety
a. Always act in a manner that protects the safety of clients, clients’ dogs, and the public;
b. Follow all state and local laws pertaining to canine activity and encourage clients to do the same.
2. Integrity
a. Always be truthful regarding your abilities, skills, and experience;
b. If confronted with a problem outside the scope of your abilities, skills, or experience, seek science-based solutions and/or refer clients to a trusted trainer familiar with such issues.
3. Excellence
a. Utilize LIMA based principles always seeking to use the least aversive means possible to address the issue in question;
b. Constantly be a student. Seek continued education to stay abreast of current information in the dog training profession.
4. Accountability
a. Always take responsibility for your own actions;
b. Keep detailed training logs to verify accountability of services;
c. Encourage owners to be accountable to their dogs by committing to investing the time and effort necessary to build a better owner / dog relationship.
5. Initiative
a. Seek creative science-based solutions to complex problems, but always be honest with your clients regarding your abilities, the issue presented, the abilities of the particular client and dog, and the degree of success / change that can reasonably be expected;
b. Always abstain from making guarantees.
6. Fairness
a. Treat all people and dogs equally with dignity and professionalism.
7. Respect
a. Always respect your clients, colleagues, other trainers, and most importantly, the dogs imparted to your care, guidance, and training. Stress positive attitude and patience during training.
8. Confidentiality
a. Always maintain confidentiality. Do not disclose information pertaining to clients unless given express written permission or ordered to do so by a court of law.
9. Transparency
a. Always be truthful regarding your abilities, skills, and experience;
b. Always obtain informed consent before rendering services to clients;
c. Always ensure that clients understand the financial arrangement and fees associated with the services to be provided. Document by use of written contract or agreement.
10. Best Business Practices
a. Do not engage in any activity that may be illegal, fraudulent, deceptive, or have the appearance of impropriety;
b. Give credit where credit is due. Acknowledge the accomplishments of predecessors and colleagues and do not represent information as your own if such is not accurate. Do not engage in deceptive or unfair advertising practices.
c. As a professional, understand the risks inherent in the profession. Dog training has inherent risk of safety to you, your clients, clients’ dogs, and other individuals. Acknowledging this risk means protecting yourself legally. Always obtain a waiver of liability prior to rendering services. Obtaining an appropriate level of liability insurance is highly recommended.
A quick comment on the Codes of Ethics by the APDT and the IACP. I liked the “principle based” approach from the APDT and felt the Code was well organized and the digital platform was easily accessible and user friendly. The Code was rather detailed, however; therefore, it was easy to get bogged down it into the minutiae and lose focus on the overriding theme, i.e., engaging in ethical conduct. On the other hand, I thought the IACP Code was concise and to the point, which lent itself to ease of understanding and practical usefulness. I was disappointed in both, though, from the perspective that neither really addressed the whole purpose of dog training, namely, to build a solid and beneficial relationship between the dog and owner so that both may experience a better quality of life.
-
Art. Thank you for sharing the story. I tend to agree that the salient issue revolves around uncertainty to the older dog. When a single dog household, there was predictably and consistency of resources, which I surmise, was led by the dog and not the owner. While the owner provided for the dog, my sense is that the older dog ultimately made decisions as to the provision of those resources, and not vice versa. By way of example, the owner may have left food down and it was the dog’s decision when and how often to eat. I venture the dog also had unfettered discretion as to when it did or did not want to jump up on furniture, etc. Leadership was completely absent by the owner, and in the absence of such, the older dog filled that position. With the introduction of the puppy, a new, uncontrolled variable was added to the older dog’s otherwise stable environment. When the friend and owner made overt action toward the puppy, the older dog conceivably viewed the action(s) as a challenge to its leadership which resulted in outward aggression. Territorial aggression or a protective instinct over the puppy may have played a role, though I do not see either being a real driver behind the aggression. I am surprised, and would welcome others’ thoughts on this sub-issue, as to the high degree of aggression displayed. I tend to agree with Allie that the most likely cause of the severity of the attack was breed related, but am curious as to other possible reasons.
