Just saw this in the Daily News:

In reply to:

---

Pa. police dog cleared in racial profiling probe

A police dog who could have faced the death penalty for racial profiling has been granted a reprieve.

After a two-month investigation, officials say they have found no evidence that Dolpho, a 5-year-old German shepherd, was singling out blacks while on patrol in McKees Rocks, Pa.

McKees Rocks Councilwoman Wanda Jones Dixon in June sought to have Dolpho put to sleep, claiming the dog attacked people based on race.

The dog had bolted from a K-9 wagon when the door opened, and bit a black 9-year-old boy who was playing nearby. Dixon said she had other complaints from black people that Dolpho attacked them.

---

Dolpho was cleared of any wrong doing. He is not going to be put to death, although that is what the councilwoman wants.

I'm so happy justice was served!

(Just wanted to link this to the original thread, so those who didn't see it before can read it.)

Thanks Linda!

I hope that they are not going to retain Dolpho as a police dog as I think he hasn't proven that he is not a fit dog for the job.

The Daily News reports that Dolpho is going for extra training, for a few months, then he will be put back on the job.

Well I hope that the Police Department concerned will take full responsibility if the dog ever bites a child again.

A policedog should not attack anybody unless ordered to by his handler and that wasn't what happened in this case. I found reports that said

'Witnesses said Barger commanded Dolpho to stop at least four times, but the dog kept going after the boy' .

There is no proof that the boy provoked the dog in any way. It seems that he was playing with other children when the dog started to run towards them. Fearing the dog the children tried to run into a bearby house but the boy, Brandon Livingston, was bitten as he ran up the steps.

I cannot see how they can make a successful policedog out of this animal.

Kuu, are you trying to say "as I think he HAS proven that he is not a fit dog for the job."? You have some double negatives in there, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what you meant! When I read your latest post, it finally made sense - I think it was in that "has" "hasn't" that was making your post a little unclear.

Just wanted to check, so I understood what you were saying!

You are right, Linda. I probably made my first post when I was tired.

I meant to say it has been proven that he isn't a suitable dog to be a police dog.

He should be retire, not retrained.

IHe was trained the first time and bit a child, even with retraining he might do it again.

Personally, I believe that a dog who seriously bites a child should be put down simply to protect children in the future.

I think we have a duty to protect the young of our species first.