Dog-Mauled Senior Gets $75,000

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:34 pm

One more reason why I don't believe in police dogs:

It doesn't say if this dog will be killed or not. I would hope not.

-Red

By Erica Meltzer , Arizona Daily Star

Fri Oct 20, 4:40 AM ET

Pima County will pay $75,000 to settle a lawsuit by an 85-year-old man who was attacked last year by a retired sheriff's dog.

Alexander Dufour was trimming trees in the backyard of his Casas Adobes home in April 2005 when he was mauled by a retired police dog owned by Deputy John Sumney.

Dufour's right arm was amputated, and he suffered other medical problems.

The dog had a history of biting people, including one off-duty attack for which Sumney was cited.

Dufour sued the county, the Sheriff's Department, animal control and Sumney.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors approved a settlement Tuesday for $75,000. The lawsuit against Sumney was settled for an undisclosed amount.

The county admitted no fault in the settlement, but Dev Sethi, Dufour's attorney, said the county and Sumney offered "heartfelt apologies" that went a long way toward helping Dufour heal.

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:48 pm

I think the officer who owns him should surrender him to someone who is more responsible. He has already allowed the dog to attack twice. It makes me wonder if he lets him run loose. How are these people getting that close to the dog

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:03 am

Hi Rachel,

I wonder too about that. The man was trimming his trees; did the dog just jump over the fence? Was there even a fence? I think he should have been compensated (if that's possible for loss of an arm!) but I am wondering why animal control was sued. Maybe as the dog had attacked twice before and they didn't didn't make the owner contain the dog? I don't think he should have sued the county just because the dog is considered a retired canine police officer. The dog's owner yes and maybe the sheriff dept. but I think that would have been enough.

I realize there are people here who support police dogs and know more than I do about their training. However in my view, having a dog trained to attack "bad" people seems faulty to me for just this reason- the dog was not under control and apparently attacked a "good" person. Wish we knew the reason. I just don't believe in attack dogs whether for fighting crime or for fighting period. I am assuming that this dog was trained for attacking the bad guys and was not trained only for something like bombs or drug sniffing. I could be mistaken. Am I rambling? I just woke up.

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:39 am

I really don't know about police dog training either so I can't really comment about whether it should be allowed or not. At any rate, I would have thought a dog that had shown that it was dangerous before would have been in careful confinement of some type. Some people own wild animals and most don't leave it to chance that they may just get out and kill someone and while I don't condone owning lions and tigers and bears (oh my!), I would think owning any dangerous animal would warrant the same care. Most counties around here will euthanize a dog for its third offense. Maybe the man was suing the animal control because there had been three prior attacks and he was the fourth. So he felt if they had done their job he would not have been attacked. I'm only speculating

I don't think $75,000 is enough for an arm though:(