Neighborhood problem turns violent

[patrickl]

I get the feeling I know who "emailed" the news group considering "Staffordshire Terrier" is so plainly spelled out. I remember getting the "he's just a harmless Staffordshire Terrier" story from the owner still.

Wouldn't that info be coming from the police report? I would assume the vet's info would include that info and the police would include it in their report.

FWIW in the Netherlands both the american staffordshire terrier and pit bull are banned.

[shardian]

I get the feeling I know who "emailed" the news group considering "Staffordshire Terrier" is so plainly spelled out. I remember getting the "he's just a harmless Staffordshire Terrier" story from the owner still.

Wouldn't that info be coming from the police report? I would assume the vet's info would include that info and the police would include it in their report.

FWIW in the Netherlands both the american staffordshire terrier and pit bull are banned.

The only info from the police report was included in quotations. The source of information about the condition of the dog was not disclosed, but the author did say at the beginning that he had received emails about the incident.

[patrickl]

Well that's what I meant, the "Staffordshire Terrier" bit is in the quoted part. They could have gotten that from the owner of course, but still.

[shardian]

Well that's what I meant, the "Staffordshire Terrier" bit is in the quoted part. They could have gotten that from the owner of course, but still.

My bad.

[tommy]

Bad owner = bad dog regardless of the breed.

Still,  bad dog+devastating bite  is worse than bad dog+itsy bitsy bite.   It's the damage that a pitbul can do that makes it unfit for keeping as a pet. Just like Tigers, Lions and Puma's.

Please don't be foolish and lump domesticated dogs in with wild animals. Of all the silly things to say on the grand scale of silliness this is the cake-taking silliness.

I've been told some of my comparisons are crazy but man, this guy thinks a tiger is the same as a dog because they both have teeth and can open their mouth's.

[patrickl]

The comparison is valid. Well maybe tigers is a bit too much, but a Puma is a perfectly valid comparison.

I wonder why you would think it's not valid.

Wild animals can be domesticated. They rarely attack and with the right trainer they sort of never attack. Just you claim with like pit bulls. Of course, just like with pit bulls, when they attack they do a lot of damage. Whichg is exactly why both puma's and pit bulls are not fit to be kept as pets.

[tommy]

A Puma would kill 2 or 3 pits at a time. How is that fair? A puma has to kill to eat and knows nothing other than just jumping on things that move and killing it, how is that fair? This is not fair and you'd be silly to think otherwise.

[tommy]

Read.

http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/05/the-pit-bull-debate/

I'm sure this will do nothing to change your one track mind, but still...

[patrickl]

Read.

http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/05/the-pit-bull-debate/

I'm sure this will do nothing to change your one track mind, but still...

Well I agree with some of it:

Pit Bulls (along with Rottweilers) are the types most often involved in fatal attacks against humans, often children.

Other than that it's the same delusional ¨I treat my dog well so fer suuuure my pit won't maul anyone even though the statistics and actual research show otherwise.¨

[tommy]

What did you agree with exactly? Only the parts where it does not support my feelings?

[patrickl]

What did you agree with exactly? Only the parts where it does not support my feelings?

I quoted the bit I agree with.

Pit Bulls (along with Rottweilers) are the types most often involved in fatal attacks against humans, often children.

I'm not sure what else is needed from that article. It's always the same nonsense. They agree that pit bulls and rottweilers are the breeds that commit most kills and maimings, yet we should not ban these breeds. Well then why do these breeds kill so often? Why only those breeds? Since it is only a few breeds that exhibit asymmetric risk of death and or maiming why not simply ban the breeds? What is gained by keeping these dogs among the public? Why must people die or be maimed for someones "pleasure" of keeping a dangerous animal? What else but banning these animals? Only allow them to be kept in cages?

[tommy]

I can break it down for you like this, and you can't say anything about this comparison no matter what you do. Both of these are dangerous things in life controled by people. Don't give me that "a gun can't walk off and kill someone", cause a dog can't either. The owner is in control of it's dog and gun and if the owner is not responsible people will die just the same.

A cop with a gun and a criminal with a gun, the cop or responsible person can always make the right choice with it's possession unlike the criminal or not responsible person. Don't blame the gun.

[CheffoJeffo]

The owner is in control of it's dog

Wait, I thought you said that owners not having control of their dogs was the problem ... 

[tommy]

The owner is in control of it's dog

Wait, I thought you said that owners not having control of their dogs was the problem ... 

Yes, owners not in the control are the problem, not the ones who actually have the control and take control.

I guess I should have said "owners should be in control". Better?

[patrickl]

50% of the people who got killed by a pit bull were the victim of a dog that never did anything wrong before. So it's not just situations like Shardian's. Every dog can bite in a bad moment. The problem with a pit is that it kills or maims when it attacks.

You can blah blah about being in control all you want, but these are animals. You can NEVER be in complete control of an animal. A dog DOES attack and kill on it's own where a gun needs to have someone pull the trigger for it. A dog can be annoyed because it was subjected to loud noises, because it's sick or because it feels threatened or whatever. In that state of mind it can do something completely unexpected and attack.

There is a reason why only a few breeds of dogs kill so much more often than all the others combined. It's because the breeds themselves are more dangerous than the others.

[tommy]

50% of the people who got killed by a pit bull were the victim of a dog that never did anything wrong before.

And were never treated and trained to get the potential problem out of the dog, this goes for all dogs. Just having a dog in the house that never did anything wrong is not the way to train a dog, this is just doing nothing and having a dog around, not a responsible owner, atleast not for pits. Steps need to be taken from the owner beyond feeding and providing a place to sleep.

You can blah blah about being in control all you want, but these are animals. You can NEVER be in complete control of an animal.

I'm an animal, you're an animal too, can you say for sure what I'm going to do in any situation? Does it matter if I was loved and explained as a child what is right or wrong, does it matter if I was not treated well as a child? Do these things make a person better or worse in any situation? Yes.

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm an animal, you're an animal too, can you say for sure what I'm going to do in any situation?

Pretty much, yeah ... but that's why I'm the Swami ...

[tommy]

I'm an animal, you're an animal too, can you say for sure what I'm going to do in any situation?

Pretty much, yeah ... but that's why I'm the Swami ...

Some of us are more of an animal than others. 

[patrickl]

50% of the people who got killed by a pit bull were the victim of a dog that never did anything wrong before.

And were never treated and trained to get the potential problem out of the dog, this goes for all dogs. Just having a dog in the house that never did anything wrong is not the way to train a dog, this is just doing nothing and having a dog around, not a responsible owner, atleast not for pits. Steps need to be taken from the owner beyond feeding and providing a place to sleep.

That is just your uninformed opinion against the cold hard facts that these dogs are one of a very few breeds that have a high risk of killing people.

Even if what you say is true then the risk that someone gets it wrong is obviously so great that these dogs are still not fit to be kept out of a cage.

Why is it that only people who own pits and rottweilers mistreat their dogs so badly that just about only those types of dogs go about killing and maiming people?

You can blah blah about being in control all you want, but these are animals. You can NEVER be in complete control of an animal.

I'm an animal, you're an animal too, can you say for sure what I'm going to do in any situation? Does it matter if I was loved and explained as a child what is right or wrong, does it matter if I was not treated well as a child? Do these things make a person better or worse in any situation? Yes.

No. Animals can still do something unexpected even if they have been treated perfectly all their life

More importantly, a dog can be annoyed because it was subjected to loud noises, because it's sick or because it feels threatened or whatever. In that state of mind it can do something completely unexpected and attack.

[tommy]

Why is it that only people who own pits and rottweilers mistreat their dogs so badly that just about only those types of dogs go about killing and maiming people?

That's just it, maybe they mistreat the dog or maybe they don't. The main thing is that they DID NOTHING to prevent an attack. People think dogs are toys and are something fun to have around that they do not have to do anything with or take responsibility for until they find out something bad went down. People think having a dog requires no action on their part and that it is a toy for their amusement. 

The dogs are big, yes, a bad poodle owner's dog is not going to have to worry about his dog doing a lot of damage, yes. A bad pit owner has more to worry about, yes, the bigger they are the harder they fall.

I think I'm starting to not want to talk about pit bulls anymore, please do not respond anymore. 

[CCM]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDH561.DTL



http://www.dogexpert.com/Popular%20Press/Stories/Pitbullfriend.html

In the last 18 months, 12 of the 18 confirmed dog-related fatalities in the U.S. -- or 67% -- have been caused by the pit bull terrier, a breed that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog population.

 

Unfortunately the pit bull, when it attacks, doesn't merely bite man -- or, most horribly, child -- it clamps its powerful jaws down and literally tears its victim apart. ''The injuries these dogs inflict are more serious than other breeds because they go for the deep musculature and don't release; they hold and shake,'' says Sheryl Blair of the Tufts Veterinary School, in North Grafton, Mass., which last year held a symposium entitled Animal Agression: Dog Bites and the Pit Bull Terrier. ''Most breeds do not multiple-bite,'' says Kurt Lapham, a field investigator for the West Coast Regional office of the Humane Society. ''A pit bull attack is like a shark attack: He keeps coming back.''  ''A  pit bull,'' says Judge Victor E. Bianchini of San Diego, '' is the closest thing to a wild animal there is in a domesticated dog."

''A  pit bull,'' says Judge Victor E. Bianchini of San Diego, '' is the closest thing to a wild animal there is in a domesticated dog."

[patrickl]

Why is it that only people who own pits and rottweilers mistreat their dogs so badly that just about only those types of dogs go about killing and maiming people?

...

The dogs are big, yes, a bad poodle owner's dog is not going to have to worry about his dog doing a lot of damage, yes. A bad pit owner has more to worry about, yes, the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Exactly, because pit bulls are more dangerous than other types of dogs. Finally we're getting somewhere.

So you understand these dogs are more dangerous than others. Now, why should the public be subjected to this extra danger? Is there any special need that we have for these dogs? Like with a car when we take the risk because we need to move. Somehow I miss the reason why hundreds of people need to die for some peoples desire to keep an overly dangerous dog.

[Singapura]

The quote of today is:

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.
  - GK Chesterton

[mpm32]

Perhaps pits should not be banned but regulated like owning a big cat or other exotics.  People would still own them illegally but at least there would be some control.

[shardian]

Thanks for providing a link Tommy. That was a decent little report. Oh, and it also provided a pretty good picture of the shot dog.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0793801907/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-7657329-6436103#reader-link

A slightly different color scheme, a slighty wider head and there the beast sits. And on the cover of a PIT BULL book of all places. I should buy a copy and leave it with the owner.

And please Tommy, stop comparing a living, thinking, instinctive creature with an inanimate object that can only inflict damage when physically loaded, aimed, and fired.

I'll also ask you again, why don't YOU champion an effort to create legislation to regulate the ownership of vicious breeds? If you are sick and tired of being thought of as a bad owner even though you take all the precautions on your own that would be required in laws, why not try to create legislation such as:

Certified breeding papers
Certified dog training
leash laws
Muzzles in public
full containment

AND allow police officers to ENFORCE these laws with fines, EMPOWER animal control to take the dogs, and possibly JAIL for repeat offenders. The lure of Pit Bulls wouldn't be so great to the "bad owners" then now would it? Only TRUE Pit Bull lovers like yourself would be left to own them, and you could then more justifiably defend the breed and restore its reputation.

The REASON lawmakers just cut to the chase and ban these dogs is
A. because "good" owners refuse to acknowledge they are outnumbered by "bad owners'
B. "good owners" refuse to believe their dogs are dangerous if the dog gets loose.
C. "good owners" just ---smurfette--- and moan instead of supporting stricter guidelines for large dog ownership
D. Enforcement of ANY of the laws would require a law officer to be present when the dog committed a violent act. (This is the deal breaker).

So, lawmakers are forced to go the quick and dirty route because high horse individuals as yourself don't offer any support to the better route.

[sparcade]

My 2 cents......

In general it has not as much to do with the "neighborhood" or type of dog as the fact that
dogs are animals and we can't predict their behavior which is why they should always be on a lease or fenced in.

I live in a nice middle class area and while my daughter was out riding her bike in front of the house, a neighbors dog(not a pit bull) got loose and did a nice job tearing up her lower leg.  She'll have those scars forever.

Love dogs or hate em....  doesn't matter.........  when it's your kid that gets scarred you see the light ... there should be ZERO tolerance for unleashed dogs!

[patrickl]

How are you going to decide if someone is a good owner or not? Give them an evening course in dog training? I seriously doubt these people listen to reason. All current owners would protest and so they probably get a "free" license. So then what. You revoke the license when their dog does kill someone anyway?

Besides, even the dog of a good owner can kill/maim. As in 50% of pit attacks are dogs that were fine for years.

Banning dogs is difficult enough. Let alone setting up an entire system for licensing and certification of owners.

Muzzles and a leash laws would be the very least that should happen. Although I'd say most attacks happen indoors where they grab a visiting child. Even with leash laws and muzzles, you still have all those attacks.

Why should society be penalized for this dangerous dog fetish of a few people?

[ChadTower]

E.  Many "good owners" are in fact "bad owners" and will never acknowledge or understand that fact.

[shardian]

Here's yet another piece that has plenty of pictures of Pits cuddling with babies. It also has a bit of decent information of Pit Bull behavior motivation and characteristics written by an expert on Pit Bulls
http://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm

According to the article, ANY aggression towards non-threatening humans is atypical of the breed. I'll buy that to a point. For instance, when my neighbor only had the white Pit, it WAS a happy go lucky dog, that was great with his kids, friendly to all passersby, (although a little to jumpy and kept trying to get at my baby - which was not cool no matter how friendly her intentions), and NEVER barked. While it did make us a bit uncomfortable to be out walking, I wasn't afraid to walk to my mailbox. The male on the other hand was aggressive towards humans other than his family from day one. It could be because he was defending his woman, or because he has a behavior problem. Still, a good pit should not feel the need to defend his woman from a non-threatening human. The female Pit followed the big dogs lead and also became aggressive, along with a loose mut from around the corner. They trapped me in the middle of the street one night and I won't lie to you, it scared the ---Cleveland steamer--- out of me. Every time I turned my back they would start toward me. I get the feeling that Tommy would change his tune pretty quick if he was able to see "the other side" of his Pit Bull. I have faced down more than a few highly aggressive dogs, and this was on a different level.

The problem with Pits is their genetic traits - gameness and determination. It is up to the Pit to decide if an animal is a threat. If they see a child acting funny and feel they are being challenged, then as we say "it's on like Donkey Kong".

The article explicitly states that a Pit is a horrible guard dog because they love all humans. Basically, they are saying that a "good" Pit will not even bark at the mailman when he comes to the door. If that is true, and is brought to the attention of former Pitt owners who were attacked to contemplate, I wonder how many would come back and say their dog did bark at strangers. Puts a new light on things when you consider that huh?

So I will submit this to Tommy for his consideration from an expert who has written many books on Pit Bulls:

Mentally sound Pits do not show ANY aggression to ANY humans, unless very obviously threatened. Conversely from that, if ANY Pit shows ANY aggression whatsoever to ANY human, then it should be considered a safety risk from that point on.

Tommy, has your Pit ever shown ANY aggression to ANY human?

[ChadTower]

Tommy, has your Pit ever shown ANY aggression to ANY human?

Frankly, that's a useless question.  Very, very few dog owners will ever admit to this.  Hell, when I had a paper route there was a little poodle thing that would try to get at me every day.  One day it finally did and ripped a chunk out of my forearm... as I'm standing there bleeding, and her white poodle has blood all over its muzzle, the woman is still standing there saying it didn't happen.

When my older son was 2 we went over the wife's cousin's house... they had some rather large but mostly docile dogs.  Not knowing the dogs, I wanted them put away while my son was toddling around... they refused and told me I was being unreasonable.  5 minutes later one of the dogs went after my son, who was just standing there (about ten of us saw it) to the point that my mother in law snatched him off the ground and I tackled the dog.  To this day the owners deny the dog was wrong and that everyone else in the room must be lying.

I've met very, very few owners that were honest with themselves about safety issues with their dogs.

[Jdurg]

I saw this story on the news last night and immediately thought of this thread.   

[shardian]

I saw this story on the news last night and immediately thought of this thread.   

Everyone looses.

[ChadTower]

It's safe to say that guy falls into the "bad owner" bucket.

[shardian]

I've been in contact with the fellow who wrote the news article I posted. He met with the owner last night and saw the dog. He also tried to meet with the shooter to get his side of the story. Before I finish that incident, I'd like to sidebar about the shooter.

I have heard from several sources the guy is a first class ---uvula---. My neighbor told me of an incident involving him. She was outside, and saw the man's daughter allow her dog to poop in her yard and went to walk off without cleaning it up. The neighbor called the girl back, told her that she needs to pick that up, and even supplied her with a plastic baggy. A few minutes later, the dad showed up, yelled at my neighbor, and threw the bag of poop at her house. He then showed back up a few minutes after that to apologize, say he overreacted, then picked back up the poopie sack. I took that story with a grain of salt...until I heard the next thing.

This is the reporters words:

I went to the home at 124, which I was told was the shooter's house. As you say, it is up the street and around the corner.

Here is what happened: As I approached that home, a dog inside went into a barking frenzy and I could hear it slamming against the front door. A man SCREAMED at the dog. When I knocked on the door, a shirtless, goateed man with a shaved head came out yelling. I introduced myself and he then asked who I was. (I had JUST told him that!) I re-identified myself, he grabbed my camera, and tried to shove me off the steps. (He later admitted this to the deputy that I called.)

  At least the guy was honest to the police.

[ChadTower]

I wonder who is more dangerous - the dog or that guy.  Either way the guy did your work for you.  Just be sure to keep the eff away from him.

[patrickl]

I guess the guy already showed that he has a screw loose, by shooting a dog in the middle of a street filled with people.

Are you sure your neighbourhood is safe enough?

[shardian]

Just be sure to keep the eff away from him.

Ya think?

[ChadTower]

Poo flinging... definite sign of madness.

I remember posting here about the incident where I was planting bushes in my front yard and a woman walking by let her dog crap on them before I was even done planting.  When I told her to pick it up she snorted and went to walk away... so I did the responsible thing and returned it to her by picking it up with the shovel and flinging it at her as she walked away.  I fully expected her to call the cops but they never came by.

I can't find a link to that thread for the life of me, though.  Maybe that was in the asshat hole.

[tommy]

Tommy, has your Pit ever shown ANY aggression to ANY human?

No. I have said it many times before, never. My dog sees me as it's master and the one it needs to listen to at all times, no exceptions. This is not to say it will act crazy when I'm not around, that's not true either. I would tell you if he ever did anything towards me that made me worry, or better yet, he would not be here. Same for any dog.

My pit is also not a giant like the one on that book cover, but that means nothing. My dog is on the smaller to medium pit size.

[tommy]

I've got a friend dealing with a Pit that moved in across the street from him. He's got three kids and a keen eye on that dog, but no Pit Bull Repellent. And by Pit Bull Repellent, I mean gun.

You should be looking to shoot the guy across the street then, he will be the one in control of that dog and decides if he is going to step up and act like a responsible dog owner or just let the dog walk across the street and hurt you.