The recent fatal shooting of a dog by an LAPD officer generated intense public scrutiny and renewed questions about when deadly force is necessary during encounters with animals. While the investigations remain ongoing and all the facts have yet to emerge, the incident highlights a challenge patrol officers face every day: how to safely respond when a dog unexpectedly becomes part of the call.
| RELATED: Officer safety or unnecessary force? Police1 readers discuss LAPD fatal dog shooting
Dog encounters are a routine part of police work, but they can become force decisions within seconds. Officers responding to residences, welfare checks or warrants may encounter dogs that are frightened, protective or difficult to control, often with little warning.
To help officers better prepare for those encounters, Police1 spoke with canine-behavior expert Dr. James Crosby, who helped develop the National Sheriffs’ Association’s Law Enforcement Dog Encounters Training (LEDET) program. Crosby says officers don’t need to become animal-behavior experts, but they do need enough training to recognize canine behavior, anticipate potential problems and create time and distance whenever circumstances allow.
In this Q&A, Crosby discusses what officers should assess before approaching a residence, when less-lethal options may be appropriate, what agencies should include in training and how preparation can create more options when seconds matter.
| WATCH: LAPD body-worn camera footage of the incident
The following body-worn camera footage was released by the Los Angeles Police Department as part of its public disclosure of the incident. The investigation remains ongoing, and the video represents only one part of the evidence investigators will review.
We do not yet know all the facts in the recent Los Angeles dog-shooting incident. As an expert, how do you approach reviewing a case like this?
When I approach a case, the first thing I need is information, and lots of it. I go to the unredacted body-worn camera footage. What did the officer see, hear, appreciate or ignore? What was the officer’s purpose? What was the dog doing, and what cues and signals were present? I want to understand what the officer perceived and how the dog was responding.
Then I question the practices and policies of the agency. What have the officers been taught? What have they been told to do, and what have the results been before? Are the rules and policies enforced, or are they mostly blown off?
Then I look deeper into how the officers were trained, if at all, and whether the agency has given its people the tools they need, both physically and knowledge-wise. We cannot expect officers to make good decisions when they have not been equipped to do so.
What is the first thing an officer should assess when realizing a dog is present?
Nearly half of American households have a dog. Look for clues that there is a dog even before you see or hear it.
Orient yourself. What is the physical layout? Are there ways to immediately separate yourself from the dog using what is at hand, such as simply closing a gate? Can you get the owner’s cooperation?
After all, a conflict avoided is a conflict won.
What are some of the biggest misconceptions officers may have about dog behavior?
Are dogs simply mean, jealous or inherently vicious? No. Nothing occurs out of context. Look at the situation and try to see how the dog sees you. Are you sending signals that you can be trusted, or are all your signals confrontational and threatening?
Dogs do not need to be dominated. Trying interspecies dominance is a topic for a much deeper discussion, and it is a good way to ensure you get bitten. What dogs want is to be safe and to understand what is happening. We normally enforce compliance from humans, but dogs do not think that way.
You are a guest in the dog’s territory. Respect the dog’s needs. Dogs do not want to fight or bite. They want to be safe, and they want their home and resources to remain safe.
There is also a lot of us-and-them thinking here. Officers say, “My dog is protecting me, but your dog is a vicious threat.” We do not get it both ways.
What can officers do to slow the situation down before it becomes a force decision?
Look at what is really happening, not just what you were told. Observe, orient, decide and then act. Look for options all the time, and give yourself an out. Give the dog an out. Think about the situation from the dog’s point of view before things get sticky.
Separate yourself from the dog. Learn basic dog body language so you can understand the dog’s signals and know how to give clear signals back. If no one is dying, bleeding or shooting at you right now, you have time.
When are less-lethal options appropriate?
There is a long-standing truism in police training: When things get tight, you act like you train. As police officers, we train and train with our firearms and on the situations in which the use of deadly force is proper and justified. But in my experience, that same training intensity does not extend to less-lethal modes of defense. Sure, we grapple, fight and handcuff resistant suspects. We may spend a little time with a baton, and we definitely practice briefly with OC spray, but nowhere near the amount of drilling needed to make less-lethal techniques become second nature through muscle memory as firearms skills do. And that leads, in many cases, to reflexively responding to a threat by drawing your firearm.
With dog encounters, that may be exactly the wrong response. After all, once you have committed to deadly force, it can be difficult to retreat to less-lethal. The momentum is already there, and less-lethal is not a response you have trained, repeated and drilled.
With dogs, the threat is not necessarily life-threatening. In fact, most dog bites are minor injuries that don’t even require medical intervention, such as sutures. They are scary, but objectively they cause relatively low-level damage. My recommendation is twofold. First, plan ahead, even if you only have seconds. Those seconds of situational awareness may save your life and someone else’s by helping you appreciate what is around you and what risks are present.
Second, pay attention. What do you hear, see or smell as you approach a call? Are there bowls, toys or bumper stickers? Can you hear barking? Look at the surroundings. Is there a gate you can close to gain space and contain a dog? Are there objects, such as cars, tables or other furniture, that you can duck behind if necessary? Which way is your closest exit if you need to make a tactical retreat? Where is the fatal funnel, and how can you stay out of it, even with a dog loose?
If your observations give you a clue, prepare for a possible conflict. Withdraw your OC spray or baton and carry it lightly in your support (non-gun) hand. If a dog pops out, you are ready to respond efficiently and immediately. A quick spray of OC, or even the sound of your collapsible baton extending, may be enough to give you space and separation. If nothing happens that requires intervention, you can quietly slip the OC canister back into your pocket or stow your baton.
If you do have to deploy it, a brief spray of OC into the dog’s face is often highly effective. The baton will give you a target to hold in front of the dog and take any bites while the owner takes control of the dog. Even if you misjudge a dog that turns out not to be a real threat, at worst you might have to help the owner wash the dog’s face. No harm, no foul.
How has the legal landscape changed in recent years for agencies and officers involved in dog shootings?
Legal changes are key here, and the landscape is becoming more complex. Officers and agencies are facing increasingly significant civil liability. Recent settlements in police dog-shooting cases have reached $500,000 and, in one case, $675,000.
| RELATED: Colo. city settles lawsuit for $675K after officer shoots dog during 2019 call
Officers have used the provisions of Graham v. Connor, arguing that the full scenario is fluid and evolving and that officers do not have the benefit of hindsight. Yet Graham does not establish a free ride. It states that an officer’s subjective intent does not matter. The core question is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable.
This was further addressed in Love v. Grashorn, a published 2025 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case arose after a Colorado police officer shot a family dog named Herkimer while investigating a report of a vehicle in a parking lot after business hours. The district court denied the officer qualified immunity, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. The appellate court did not decide that the officer violated the Constitution. Instead, it held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could conclude that the dog did not pose an immediate threat, that the owners were available to control the dog and that the officer had time to consider nonlethal options.
Because those material facts were disputed, the case could not be resolved on summary judgment. That is important because it reinforces that the objective reasonableness of an officer’s perception of a threat may ultimately be decided by a jury when the facts are disputed. Officers cannot simply say, “I thought the dog was going to bite me.” The question becomes whether that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
While Love v. Grashorn is binding only within the Tenth Circuit, it illustrates how courts are closely examining whether an animal presented an immediate threat before granting qualified immunity.
There have been serious injuries and fatalities resulting from rounds fired at dogs, including ricochets and unintended strikes on people. Officers are not immune from the consequences of a poor shooting decision, especially when the objective risk of other options is considered.
Remember, we are talking about objective risk. To my knowledge, no law enforcement officer in the United States has ever been killed by a dog bite.
What training should every patrol officer receive before facing a split-second decision involving a dog?
Every officer should be taught the basics of dog behavior under normal and stressful conditions. Officers do not need to become experts. They need to know enough to understand how a situation may develop.
They need to be taught that more force is often counterproductive. They should lean toward prevention, de-escalation and less-lethal control.
Why has the National Sheriffs’ Association invested in Law Enforcement Dog Encounters Training, and what skills does the training emphasize?
In 2015, the National Sheriffs’ Association saw the need for competent training, and in 2019 we released Law Enforcement Dog Encounters Training.
The course runs from six to eight hours and is available to agencies and officers at no cost. It includes live sessions, scenario-based illustrations and interactive, hands-on practical skills based on variable, real-life situations.
The training stresses informed decision-making, safety for the officer, the dog and the public, and techniques for de-escalating encounters and preventing the unnecessary use of deadly force.
What is the one principle every patrol officer should remember when responding to a call where a dog may be present?
First, remember that all dogs bite, but almost all will make an extra effort not to have to.
Second, we try to gain compliance from people. With dogs, the goal is not compliance because they do not really understand that concept. We have existed with dogs for millennia. We can continue to coexist if we pay attention.
Above all, think and plan, even if only for a minute.
As a rookie, I was taught to practice situations in my head because how you practice is how you react. Use scenario training and realistic setups to learn how to go home without tooth marks, and recognize that dog bites are highly unlikely to be fatal.
As agencies review the Los Angeles incident, what questions should they be asking?
Reserve judgment until you have seen the full video, and then consider the following questions:
- Did the officers have reason to know the dog was there even before the door opened? Was there barking or were there other signs?
- Once the officers knew there was a dog, did they prepare for uncontrolled contact?
- Did the officers have time to prepare? Was this a sudden eruption, or did they have time to make a plan before they knocked?
- Did the officers try to use less-lethal methods, or did they immediately draw their service weapons? Why?
- Did the officers have other options? If not, why had the agency not provided those options?
- Does the agency have adequate policy and training?
- Has the agency ever held an officer responsible for failing to follow those policies and procedures when shooting a pet?
- Was firearms protocol followed when the shots were apparently fired down a hallway with others potentially in the line of fire?
- Were the hallway walls sufficient to ensure that other residents were not exposed to unintended gunfire?
This case will evolve as more information is released, and a full investigation is essential for both the officers and the public. Whatever the ultimate findings, agencies should use cases like this to examine their own policies, training and equipment before the next dog encounter occurs.
About Dr. James Crosby
Dr. James W. Crosby, Ph.D., M.S., CBCC-KA, CDBC, is a retired Jacksonville (Florida) Sheriff’s Office lieutenant and canine-behavior expert. He helped develop the National Sheriffs’ Association’s Law Enforcement Dog Encounters Training (LEDET) program and has trained law enforcement agencies throughout the United States on canine behavior, officer safety and investigating serious dog attacks. He is a research associate with Harvard University’s Canine Brains Project and has testified as an expert in canine-aggression cases.
