Posted on 05/04/2010 8:25:48 PM PDT by Chet 99
Kill it.
I used to side with the “Pit Bulls are good dogs, it’s the owner” crowd here for a long time. I still sort of do but prefer to handle this the way laws regarding people are handled. that is, on an individual basis.
That is, when a white man commits a crime, you don’t jail all white people. Likewise with these dogs. To be frank, they are more POTENTIALLY dangerous than a toy poodle, and owners should take responsibility for that when they make the choice to own them.
So it’s pretty simple: When ANY dog attacks, make the owner fully responsible for the outcome. And if serious bodily harm or death is the result, the owner should be held fully accountable, to the point of “involuntary manslaughter” in the latter case. And if it can be proven that he provoked his dog to attack, third degree murder, unless it was a self defense move.
Yeah, couple of my neighbors have pits but they all seem pretty easy going. Stories like this are enough to make a man consider working in his yard with a .40 on the hip or a 12 ga. nearby.
80 lb. dog is gonna be hard to subdue by hand. Any breed.
I think the dog should be put down. What do you think?
This is the fourth serious pit bull attack in the past 12 months or so in my small town of Auburn, California. People are getting fed up with the irresponsibility of the owners ... and we have black bears roaming around up here that don’t cause this much trouble!
Kill it.
Hope it didn’t have rabies.
They should have shot it right away. Forget this tazering crap. I wish it were me and not the old man. They’d have had to surgically remove the trowel and the hammer from the dead carcass.
Dogs of Peace (TM)
Freedom doesn’t allow you to keep a bengal tiger in your backyard because improper care and caging places innocent bystanders in danger. The procedure for owning a pit bull should be the same for owning any other dangerous animal.
And before you cite the 2nd amendment ... there is no right to own a dangerous animal. States and localities can constitutionally regulate.
SnakeDoc
Absofrickinlutely.
For starters.
I think an Auburn city councilman proposed this after the last vicious attack by three pit bulls that nearly killed a young man, but discovered his idea ran counter to California law.
If that's so, then I say let's raise the license fees to an extraordinary level to reflect the extraordinary risk these vicious animals pose to innocent people in populated areas.
They are bred to snap.
General assumption is you left the sarcasm tag off your post.
I completely agree with your suggestion. If a person wants to own a dog that has a higher potential for serious injury or even death, then the owner should be held responsible if that dog does attack another person (and held monetarily responsible if their dog attacks and kills someone else’s pet).
Pits are useless. Even the military won't use them.
Exactly. Dangerous animals should require both licenses to legally obtain/maintain and legal liability should they commit these types of attacks.
Muleskinner thanks for a moment of common since and reality. There are some who will not look at the clear numerical facts of this discussion and defend these dogs even when they kill.
All dogs are ‘easy going’ until they snap.
I don’t know how many pit bull owners I’ve heard quoted in these kinds of stories that have said ‘my dog has always been fine, it’s the first time they ever did that’.
Conversely I never hear that kind of statement from any other kind of dog owner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.