Let me reprhase that then.

Tell the LEO the dog attacked you. Since "attack" is not limited to physical contact, but also includes the threat of physical contact, it isn't a lie. Since you cannot say for sure what the dog's true intent was, you cannot discount that the threat was there, whether perceived or real. His mere presence and the possibility that you felt threatened by him are satisfactory legal criteria.

Now, whether you actually felt threatened by the dog or not really doesn't matter anymore. In your mind, you may not have been threatened, but that doesn't diminish the propensity that a threat existed, whether you perceived it or not. So telling the officer the dog attacked you may not be physically accurate, but nonetheless legally appropriate. The issue of video is then moot, so long as the presence of the dog in your proximity, uncontrolled, is evidentiary. In your mind an attack may not have actually occured, but the possibility that one may have without you being aware of it precludes your assumption or predisposition, and so the more responsible act as a citizen is to assume an attack did occur, or was likely to have occured and necessary legal intervention on the part of the LEO is warranted.

There, how's that for lawyering it up?

Well, in legaleze (is that how you spell that???), what you got there is a lie that will fly...

He he he...

The judge would probably find me in contempt if I tried to rattle that off in his courtroom.

To quote Leroy Jethro Gibbs..."Do ya think???"

what about kevlar body armor for your dog? Dogs can't bite through kevlar regardless of their teeth sharpness.

LOL!!!

Ever wear body armor? I guarantee your dog will not approve. Better just to put him under a big plastic shell and teach him to duck down when the big dog's come snooping.

You know, I've been thinking about this "how to avoid a dog attack" challenge, and I think there's a suitable, albeit slightly extreme solution for situations where you can't avoid confrontation with some idiot's dog that is running around free as a lark. For about $50 you could build an omnidirectional ultrasonic transmitter that sweeps from 18 KHz to 28 KHz at about 100 db. Basically, you'd generate an envelope of great deterrance to dogs ranging from 15 to 30 feet in all directions. In fact, any dog in your immediate vicinity (say 100 yards) is going to know you are there and want to get as far away from you as possible.

Perhaps that is a little too extreme, okay, build a proximity detection system into it so that if any dogs move to within 15 feet or so, it triggers the device automatically , blasting him with wholly unexpected and highly uncomfortable ultrasonic noise. Concerned about subjecting your pooch to such an assault, you can engineer the sound device to create a cone of greatly diminished noise levels within 5 feet of your location. Your dog will still feel the effects, but they will be greatly diminished.

It won't be much longer until we have electronic sentinel systems hovering above our heads protecting us from the threats of having to roam out in public. There are already some great examples of robotic deterrant systems on the market that function extremely well in a household or office environment, providing a highly effective security and protection capability. It is just a matter of a few more years, and these devices will be portable enough to take outside with us. Imagine having a large disc hovering 10 feet above you, equipped with a whole arsenal of security and protection devices, even stowing an array of survival gear if you want. It won't be much longer.

Functional exoskeletons are also very close to a reality now, too. I reckon in another twenty years folks will be walking around in outfits looking like stormtrooper costumes from Star Wars, with an array of HUD and communication systems, surveillance gear, battle protection systems, and atmospheric indepence built into the suit. Bikers will be able to walk away from 11 g impacts without any injuries.

Well, think about it. It's a brave new world, but one full of danger.

Just some crazy notions I guess.

body armor for the dog is not far fetch idea. It can protect against teeth from penetrating soft tissues. It is most logical idea.

if you guys oppose to body armor then why can't manufacturers make taser for dog kind. zzap the offending dog with enough voltage to disable him immediately.

Kevlar just wouldn't do much good in a case like this, an attack of a small dog by a big dog. The puncturing of the kevlar is not the real issue, the crushing power of a large dog's jaws is. Most small dogs injured by large dogs have crush damage. The tooth holes are closer to nuisance value.

Sue

Thanks for all of the replys, everyone. It is a comfort to know that even if my course of action (picking up my dog) isn't the best, it is something that most others would do.

I have heard about the Dog Whisperer, and fortunately the psychology behind what he does and his best techniques aren't extraordinarily new so I don't necessarily have to go to him for insight. There is something about that guy, when I've seen him on TV, that I just don't trust. I can't place it.

As for the kevlar body armor, I think my dog is going to have to stick with a knit sweater. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'll investigate the legality of pepper spray in my state, though. That'll be useful for my own safety when I'm without my dog, anyway. I'm pretty sure it's legal to carry it in MN, considering our CCW laws (and it's about time I learn to take advantage of that).