A 33-year-old man who bit back after he was caught by a Phoenix police dog is suing police.

Erin Sullivan alleges the dog violated his civil rights and used excessive force to capture him after he ran from officers in Glendale during a burglary investigation last year.

Police say Sullivan bit the dog back, injuring it.

The lawsuit names the cities of Phoenix and Glendale and four officers.

Precursor filings to the lawsuit sought $200,000 from Glendale and $250,000 from Phoenix.

Officials in Glendale and Phoenix have declined comment.

Sullivan also alleges Glendale police refused to give him insulin to treat his diabetes. Sullivan's attorney, Keith Knowlton, has said his client suffered a diabetic seizure in a Glendale cell.

Sullivan is serving eight years for convictions in the Glendale burglary.

Source: The Arizona Republic, http:// www.azcentral.com

Suing, nowadays, seems to be the "get-rich-quick" scheme of choice for most people involved in some kind of dispute, but this one really makes me grind my teeth!

The nerve of a convict already serving time for the burglary he was caught committing, to now claim that his civil rights were violated because of how he was subdued, after committing the crime to begin with. Self-educated jailhouse lawyers are a blight on our society!

Police dogs are trained to catch and attack whomever is being pursued by the law officers at the time, to assist in taking down the culprit running from the scene of the crime. This man is actually pressing charges against the K-9 for doing its job.

If he had not run when police ordered him to stop, it may not have been necessary to use the dog. However, if he ran, as was indicated, the officers were obligated by duty to use whatever means it took to capture him.

I would think "excessive force to capture" would have to be defined when fleeing from police. What would Mr. Sullivan have considered to be appropriate behavior in stopping him from getting away? The officers saying please?

If police officers had ordered him to "freeze" and he stopped, held up his hands, obeyed orders and didn't resist, but was still attacked by the animal or beaten by the officers, he might actually have a civil rights case. But, his flight and refusal to "come quietly" led to the alleged excessive force it took to collar him.

Now, even though Mr. Sullivan was being detained after being arrested for whatever charges were being brought against him, he does still reserve certain rights. For instance, he has a right to medical treatment and to make their "one phone call."

If taking insulin was something he did on a regular basis, he should have been allowed to continue to do so even if he was being held in jail. A felon with a clinical medical condition still needs to be treated, regardless of why he's incarcerated. Not doing so could be considered inhumane... yes, even for someone who has broken the law, fled capture and bit a police dog.

So, regarding Sullivan's allegations of withheld medical attention: he may have a legitimate lawsuit. But injuring a K-9 "in pursuit" is the equivalent of injuring a police officer in the line of duty. If his job is to stop you from either committing a crime or from fleeing a crime scene, any resistance offered that results in injury to an officer is not just "a hazard of the job:" it becomes aggravated assault with "intent." Any culprit unwise enough to attack an officer of the law should be held doubly accountable for causing the slightest amount of injury.

")