DuckSouth.com

MSDuckmen wrote:

lilwhitelie wrote:Also number 4 was off as well.....

Yes you can train a bear or tiger etc to be tame heck even ol bambi can come eat out of your hand but don't forget all dogs originated from a wild animal at some point not just pits. I have been around some great pits from house dogs to catch dogs and have been around some German sheperds and Rotts that would rip your head off.

The owner is going through hell just as many of you would if you shot a young teen breaking in your house but that teen should have had his A#$ whipped when he was 3 yrs old to know better and no1 would have to be put in that situation.

If it had been your child you would be singing a different tune.
This dog was not confined behind a fence where a child could not get to it. This law is much like a swimming pool where the home owner is required to make the property safe for children that would see it as an attractant.
Bottomline is that child probably saw the dog and was thinking "Puppy" when he made his way up to the dog. Had the dog been behind a fence it would have been a different story.
Both sides is where the blame rest and you can try and justify it any way you like but what is to say it would not have happened with the parent standing right by the dog. Only takes a second to rip out a childs throat.

NO!! Would I be mad as hell??? Yes. The problem I saw was he was saying you could train a bear or tiger to do tricks etc but at one time dogs were wild as well. Now if I had a 3 yr old outside ALL day unsupervised and it "wandered" into my neighbors yard I KNEW had a pitbull and it was killed of course I would be mad but at myself for being so stupid and irresponsible for allowing it to happen. Mother is just pointing blame as to keep dhs off her ass.

lilwhitelie wrote:

MSDuckmen wrote:

lilwhitelie wrote:Also number 4 was off as well.....

Yes you can train a bear or tiger etc to be tame heck even ol bambi can come eat out of your hand but don't forget all dogs originated from a wild animal at some point not just pits. I have been around some great pits from house dogs to catch dogs and have been around some German sheperds and Rotts that would rip your head off.

The owner is going through hell just as many of you would if you shot a young teen breaking in your house but that teen should have had his A#$ whipped when he was 3 yrs old to know better and no1 would have to be put in that situation.

If it had been your child you would be singing a different tune.
This dog was not confined behind a fence where a child could not get to it. This law is much like a swimming pool where the home owner is required to make the property safe for children that would see it as an attractant.
Bottomline is that child probably saw the dog and was thinking "Puppy" when he made his way up to the dog. Had the dog been behind a fence it would have been a different story.
Both sides is where the blame rest and you can try and justify it any way you like but what is to say it would not have happened with the parent standing right by the dog. Only takes a second to rip out a childs throat.

NO!! Would I be mad as hell??? Yes. The problem I saw was he was saying you could train a bear or tiger to do tricks etc but at one time dogs were wild as well. Now if I had a 3 yr old outside ALL day unsupervised and it "wandered" into my neighbors yard I KNEW had a pitbull and it was killed of course I would be mad but at myself for being so stupid and irresponsible for allowing it to happen. Mother is just pointing blame as to keep dhs off her !@#.

This proves my point well.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G700_zPJ1eU&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zTdhncRqOqQ&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5yVHX8-k7aQ&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mNgS92S-QlA&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3gUZeztDg&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOTMLG-3CXE&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0k8s3n6dqn8&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ayXD6U_bo&feature=related

Just a few to make a point but it is pretty common. So if your going to have a breed that is dangerious you better be prepaired to contain them from others.

From a legal civil tort liability standpoint, the dog owner is liable for the death of this child. Period.

A pit bull, unlike some other breeds of dogs, is presumed to be "viscious" (it does not have to first bite someone in order to thereafter be presumed viscious). And there is "strict liability" for the owner of a viscious dog. While a trespass situation might ordinarily nullify such strict liability, in this case the victim was a 3 year old. A 3 year old cannot commit trespass, as such a young child is not old enough to form the requisite intent to commit trespass. Nor can the child be considered "negligent", as a child that young legally cannot be negligent.

However, it is highly doubtful that a "crime" was committed by the dog owner with respect to the death of the child, other than perhaps the crime of owning and keeping such an animal within the city limits (per the city ordinance posted above). Whatever the fine and penalties are for a breach of this ordinance would be the extent of the criminal punishment.

But, there very well could have been a "crime" committed by the parent of the child ---eg. child endangerment etc. This is similar to circumstances when a young child is left unattended and injures himself in an accident ---eg fire, fall, etc. Most often, the parent is prosecuted for some type of child endangerment crime.

If you are the owner of a pit bull, you need to understand that you WILL have civil tort liability in the event that dog bites or otherwise harms someone. Only in a criminal trespass situation by an adult would this strict liability perhaps be nullified. You generally own such an animal at your own risk.

And if one ever ventures into my yard, it will be shot and killed --- with no hesitation.

Po Monkey Lounger wrote:From a legal civil tort liability standpoint, the dog owner is liable for the death of this child. Period.

A pit bull, unlike some other breeds of dogs, is presumed to be "viscious" (it does not have to first bite someone in order to thereafter be presumed viscious). And there is "strict liability" for the owner of a viscious dog. While a trespass situation might ordinarily nullify such strict liability, in this case the victim was a 3 year old. A 3 year old cannot commit trespass, as such a young child is not old enough to form the requisite intent to commit trespass. Nor can the child be considered "negligent", as a child that young legally cannot be negligent.

However, it is highly doubtful that a "crime" was committed by the dog owner with respect to the death of the child, other than perhaps the crime of owning and keeping such an animal within the city limits (per the city ordinance posted above). Whatever the fine and penalties are for a breach of this ordinance would be the extent of the criminal punishment.

But, there very well could have been a "crime" committed by the parent of the child ---eg. child endangerment etc. This is similar to circumstances when a young child is left unattended and injures himself in an accident ---eg fire, fall, etc. Most often, the parent is prosecuted for some type of child endangerment crime.

If you are the owner of a pit bull, you need to understand that you WILL have civil tort liability in the event that dog bites or otherwise harms someone. Only in a criminal trespass situation by an adult would this strict liability perhaps be nullified. You generally own such an animal at your own risk.

And if one ever ventures into my yard, it will be shot and killed --- with no hesitation.

As stated the dog under law does not have to be euphanized due to the fact it has never shown aggresion before and was CHAINED. Will it be euphanized.... YES. The owner doesn't want it back
due to all neg press etc he has received and will receive if he doesn't.

As for "visious" breeds... is this not some form of discrimination to an extent???? Pits get the attention due to most were used for fighting as they are strong and built very well for such a "game". If labs were built that way they could be the same as are Rotts, German Sheps, Dobermans, Chows, Presa Canerios, American Bulldogs.... list could go on and on. If someone started a fight ring with one of those breeds the same backlash would proceed but its like any sport.... Micheal Jordan was built to play basketball and proof was made when he tried baseball.

Msduckmen I saw the clips and those could be from ANY breed thing is PITS get the coverage due to BAD rap due to the VICS etc that ONLY used them for FIGHTING. I have had dogs and know many others that had dogs that were food aggresive or house protective or protective of their toys etc. If a child tried to invade their space they would be bitten. Case in point my best friend has a child thats 5 and is used to his lab and being able to jump on him and grab his ears etc. Well he tried this with MAMAWS Golden that he has played with since birth and he almost ripped his face off. Plastics had to do surgery and he will still bear scars. Was the dog put down??? NO.

I have to privalege if you wanna call it that to see numerous dog bites EVERY YEAR and to most surprise most are LABRADOR RETRIEVERS. Next would be Chows and next ankle biters. Last on the list would be a Pitt. Only seen 1 in 11 years and he was breaking up a fight between 2 of em. I could fill you tube up with grapfic photos of kids with faces messed up from "family pets" gone bad but due to HIPPA I can't. They get no attention cause they are "sweet" dogs.

I hope yall get a chance to watch the documentary National Geographic is going to air on Vics rescued Pits and how they are doing now. If given a loving environment they can be rehabilitated and are loving dogs now and love just being a dog and being given POSITIVE affection.

Hell Barbour pardoned a dang MURDERER the other day that gunned down his exwife just because he was "good" at the gov's mansion. He my friend should be euphanized. Our system is SCREWED!!!!!

Po Monk,
I have also heard of a case where the homeowners insurance had to pay out on a claim where the dog did not even attack. A runner was greeted at the fence, near the sidewalk, by a barking dog, startling and causing the runner to fall. The runner suffered broken wrists. Liabilty on home insurance picked up the tab.

Notice you dont hear about Labs killing kids.

smwrsth wrote:Notice you dont hear about Labs killing kids.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to get over to lilwhitelie. Other dogs bite but you don't see them kill time and time again.

Exceptions to every rule but the majority of pits are screwey to trust. They turn on their own in a heart beat for no reason. Just watch the clips.

But then some people will never agree even when they are proved wrong.

MSDuckmen wrote:

smwrsth wrote:Notice you dont hear about Labs killing kids.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to get over to lilwhitelie. Other dogs bite but you don't see them kill time and time again.

Exceptions to every rule but the majority of pits are screwey to trust. They turn on their own in a heart beat for no reason. Just watch the clips.

But then some people will never agree even when they are proved wrong.

Yea I was proven wrong. You showed clips of pits that made the news. All I am saying is I have seen more kids in the ER that have been ripped up and scarred for life from other breeds more than pits. Killed???/ Maybe not but thats beside the point. These dogs get the bad rap due to waht PEOPLE made these dogs do. If everytime a bite was actually reported and the numbers actually made public pits would fall WAY behind other breeds. Folks just don't wanna hear about a lab that actually bites people they are americas favorite breed and yes I won one and not a pit.

I have owned other breeds that were food agressive and if a kid came near them at feeding time they would have gotten eaten up. Killed??? Probably not but an attack is an attack pitt or lab or weany dog.

Back years ago the breed to get was the Wolf Hybrid??? Now open up a can of worms.

So what you are saying is its ok to have ol lassie that might just rip a kids ear off and take out an eye (which I have seen) as long as he doesn't kill the kid?? Hardly any of the attacks I see are ever reported as it is always just a family pet but if the news could get these pics of some I have seen it would get the same publicity as pitt attacks. Media just makes sure it covers Pitt attacks.

lilwhitelie wrote:...Killed???/ Maybe not but thats beside the point.

No, that is EXACTLY the point. Responsible pet owners - and the key word here is "responsible" - must make every effort to protect the public from possible adverse actions caused by their pets. In this case, the dog owner is responsible because he kept the dog chained and secured. AND, after the attack, he is the one saying that the dog must be put down because it killed a child. In the meantime, someone needs to teach JPD how to use a firearm and shove a 10 ga up the @$$ of the parent!

Some of you have seen this before.. But for those who have not..

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

The stats are overwhelming against the Pit Bull..

I have trained Bonecrusher to kill if she has to. She hasn't had to yet.

bonecrusher... pound for pound theres no badder m'fin dog on the planet

I couldn't resist this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCFGwCVnHqg

lilwhitelie wrote: Yea I was proven wrong. You showed clips of pits that made the news. All I am saying is I have seen more kids in the ER that have been ripped up and scarred for life from other breeds more than pits. Killed???/ Maybe not but thats beside the point. These dogs get the bad rap due to waht PEOPLE made these dogs do. If everytime a bite was actually reported and the numbers actually made public pits would fall WAY behind other breeds.

Hmmm Seems Cwinkler's link proves again that your views are bias.

Check it out again and you will find Pits are the leaders in almost all catagories.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf