Skip to comments.Condemned pit bull returning to death row
Posted on 05/15/2010 9:34:01 PM PDT by Chet 99
(05-14) 16:08 PDT RENO -- The condemned pit bull that was sprung from the Alameda animal shelter, allegedly by its owners, has been found in Reno and will be euthanized next week, authorities said Friday.
Max, a 3-year-old, 70-pound red nose pit bull, was located at a Reno motel Thursday night and was taken to a local shelter. An Alameda animal control officer will drive to Reno on Monday to retrieve Max, after which the dog will be destroyed, said Alameda police Sgt. Jill Ottaviato.
An Alameda County Superior Court commissioner ordered Max destroyed Tuesday. The dog was labeled dangerous because he bit a veterinary technician in Oakland and a friend of Cochran and Perry at the couple's home at the Alameda Islander Motel.
Alameda animal-control officials were ready to euthanize Max shortly after Commissioner Thomas Rasch issued his ruling Tuesday. Rasch, however, agreed to allow Cochran and Perry to say their goodbyes at 11 a.m. Wednesday.
But after the hearing, police believe, Cochran bought a set of bolt cutters, setting into motion a plan he had allegedly hatched with Perry to break into the shelter on Fortmann Way and steal Max. The pit bull vanished from his locked kennel sometime between 4:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. Wednesday.
The couple's Ford F-150 pickup truck was seen on surveillance video taken outside the animal shelter the morning of the break-in, said Deputy District Attorney Mark McCannon of Alameda County.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/BAER1DEP0P.DTL#ixzz0o4195oml
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/BAER1DEP0P.DTL#ixzz0o40s0TaC
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I know this is crazy, but part of me thinks he bit the vet because he’s a dog.
The vet, perhaps. But there was also the friend. And a couple who lives in motels (Alameda and Reno) ought not keep a pitbull.
Bu-Bye. One less set of mechanized diabolical choppers on the street to harm or kill another person or another dog.
............ahhhhh Yeah! (actually no one with any brains should keep a Pitbull).
Cap the owner too!!!...
You know after I posted that I thought, oh, that sounds like I’m being sarcastic. Actually, I was not. I meant to say I was considering that an animal in a human world is apt to behave any way an animal might. Some dogs bite. Just the way it is. They are not able to understand right from wrong, as we in our world do.
I do understand the animal should prob be destroyed but I feel sorry for him. Kind of like King Kong brought into a world where all he could do was act like what he was, an animal. His natural aggressive nature led him to his death.
I have a pit bull mix either with a Dalmatian or a pointer. She is very sweet but can be a handful ( Think of Marly)!
Feel sorry for the maimed and disfigured person whose life is never the same after such a vicious beast designed and bred to maul human flesh has torn at their limbs, and neck, and face. Feel sorry for the beautiful children whose smiles and lives are destroyed and the adults who have to under go surgery after surgery. Don’t feel sorry for the irrational creature that is quietly gassed and goes to sleep. Yes animals are animals and people are people. There is is wide chasm between the two.
You should be killed according to one poster here.
is there any worthy reply to such idiocy?
kiss my ass or go to hell just falls short you know?
I do feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for both.
These dogs need some kind of test. If they can be shown to behave among their own "doggy" companions, they can probably be trusted among their human companions.
I've been following this story. The dog has a history of bites. With a pit bull you cannot take a chance. The dog must be killed.
Instead of feeling sorry for the dog, save those warm fuzzy thoughts for a child out there somewhere that will not have his face ripped off by this dog.
Since you’ve been following this story, I was wondering about the owners of the dog. The lifestyle, intelligence, and choice of dog seems to me to be that of a drug dealer. Was there ever any type of information that this was the cse?
Swiper laughs in the face of mewling, meddling obtruders.
Evidently there are some who cannot experience both feelings. I can.
“These dogs need some kind of test. If they can be shown to behave among their own “doggy” companions, they can probably be trusted among their human companions.”
This is one of the most ridiculous propositions I’ve ever read.
With the exceptions of breeds ~created~ to hunt “peacefully” in packs, [i.e. most hounds and some bird dog breeds] *all* breeds can be “dog aggressive”.
Two un-neutered males will *probably* fight.
Two unspayed bitches will *probably* fight.
Even neutering them will *probably* -not- change that inherent instinct.
Regardless of breed, “the wolves in your living room” -will- establish some kind of “pack hierarchy” whether it be through bloody fights or mere [but effectively impressive] posturing.
To say that we should only be able to “trust them with people” based on their behavior with other dogs is madness.
I would propose that a much more logical test should be for prospective -owners-.
*They* should have to pass a test based on whether or not they fully understand dog body/vocal language and how a dog’s mind is hard-wired to work.
*Most* people would fail that test.
In this case, feel sorry that the dog turned out to be evil, not that the dog will be killed.
The woman is the primary caregiver of the dog because her husband/partner is a truck driver and spends a lot of time on the road.
She said the dog is “temperamental at times” and became protective when someone pets him and touches another person at the same time.”
Apparantly she provided good care for the dog, taking it to the vet to have a bad tooth extracted. She said the dog was “grumpy” because he had had that done recently.
Truck driver couple. Lived at a motel.
‘In this case, feel sorry that the dog turned out to be evil,”
You are anthropomorphizing.
There is NO such thing as an “evil dog”.
“Evil” requires that a being be spiritually sentient enough to know “good” from “evil” and is also capable of making a moral choice.
You may as well put forth the judgment that the dog “sinned”.
Only humans are capable of “sin” and “evil” because only humans possess the ability to distinguish between the two and -choose- one or the other.
The dog was being a dog.
Or number 2:
Since everybody's got a 50/50 chance of simply guessing correctly, also include *why* you chose which dog.
Nah, its a pit bull. Its evil.
Interesting! I’m going to guess it’s the dog on top, because his ears are up. Ears up indicate confidence, right? A dog with his ears down is trying to make himself smaller.
Your score will sent via FReepmail....:)
My nephew was out playing in his front yard with his 2 1/2 year old daughter. Neighbors let the pitbull out their front door, who prompt runs over and attacks her. Luckily, he bit her on the leg and missed the main artery. She is doing okay after lengthy surgery. Don’t tell me it wasn’t the owners fault.
So much for those pointlessly cast pearls....
Hey, who are you calling a swine!?
I read your post. Don’t agree with it. Likely we are using different definitions of evil.
Owners fault and dogs nature. Pit bull no more suited for a neighborhood than a moutain lion, tiger or other wild, unpredicatable, hard to control dangerous animal.
Owner is at fault for owning it.
I hope you sued the heck out of the owner of the pit bull that did that your little girl.
It was my nephew’s daughter. It happed yesterday, and yes, they have found an attorney.
Very sorry to hear about this. Should have said that right away. I hope she will be alright.
And I hope her attorney has been instructed to make the settlement hurt!!!
The question should be, what dog is not only going to bit, but continue to bite with vice like grip, refusing to release even while being hit over the head with a shovel repeatedly. That of course is a pit bull, not a german sheppard.
German Shepherds are quite capable of that and have a *much* higher bite strength than a pit bull, although not as high as that of a Dobermann.
Schutzhund dogs are trained to *not* let go even if you club, whip or shoot them.
Are they all “evil”...or has ~human intervention~ contributed in some way?
Considering we’re discussing wholesale “breed bans”, your proclaimed credo “Your rights end when you give up your ability to protect them.” is ironic, at best.
Guns kill far more people than pit bulls, every day.
You *are* aware that gun bans and breed bans have a strong commonality, aren’t you?
It’s CONTROL of the freedom to own what you have a right to.
Just as the majority of guns never kill anyone, neither do the majority of pit bulls.
Care to reconcile that ideological conundrum?
You either fight nanny-statism in *every* form or you become complicit in it.
I do not like my chances! Both are, in my thinking!
Actually, you could be right with either choice but for very different reasons and very specific odds.
One is a “definite” and the other *could* be a “maybe...maybe not” situation.
How you *react* to either dog determines whether you get perforated...or not.
Thanks for at least honestly participating.
I do appreciate it...:)
Third or fourth one, the dog actually attacks the handler who is trying to pull him off the criminal.
No, I am talking only about pit bulls.
Guns kill far more people than pit bulls, every day.
That logic has been proved here many times to be fallacious. Guns do not jump out of their holster all on their own and go maul somebody - or even shoot them. It is not a valid analogy and it is silly to suggest it.
You *are* aware that gun bans and breed bans have a strong commonality, arent you??
In the context of this discussion, there is no commonality whatsoever.
And what is with the * * thingys you are inserting into your post??? Are you typing in texting symbols? Actually will appreciate an answer on this.
You are also reaching when you try to say the State should not have any say in the control of wild beast in residential neighborhoods. To use a correct analogy, do you advocate allowing people to keep a tiger in their home?
Yes, all pit bulls are evil. Human intervention will bring it out. But even without human encouragement, the evil will come out of a pit bull all on its own. They are evil I tell you! Evil! Even the cute loving ones owned by great people that treat them properly.
No dog is a “wild beast”.
The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758, and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists.
Nice straw man.
The “*” that perplexes you are used to emphasize a word or point.
They’re used quite commonly, here.
I do not “text”.
The overweening problem is that valid, -serious- words loose their power, often becoming effectively emasculated by their overuse.
“Evil”, is, by definition, things/actions/thoughts that are intentionally and biblically sinful.
Casually throwing it in around in an inappropriate or ‘joking’ context strips of its original power and import.
The liberals know this and have effectively diluted the original “black and white” view of good and bad, turning everything they can into myriad shades of gray, instead.
By saying that a DOG is “evil”, you are joining hands with the moral equivocators of the world.
True “evil” is found in pedophiles, poisoners, rapists and frequently, murderers, .
All of them intentionally formulate their plan, prey upon the trust/innocence/ignorance/gullibility of their victims, with malice aforethought.
-That- is evil.
[the Bible can provide you with an exhaustive list of other things that are evil]
In the KJV version of the bible, we read “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.
That was purposefully mistranslated for King James’ benefit, owing to his ‘witch phobia’.
The original text said “Thou shalt not suffer a -poisoner- to live” yet we have so-called “Christians” on this very forum who cheerfully brag about poisoning the neighbor’s dog.
“That logic has been proved here many times to be fallacious. Guns do not jump out of their holster all on their own and go maul somebody - or even shoot them. It is not a valid analogy and it is silly to suggest it.”
Every year, the accidental discharge of firearms kill more people than pit bulls do.
They may not have “jumped out of their holster” but they did ‘kill someone’ without malice aforethought.
Whether they “meant to” or not, the person is just as dead and the nanny-staters use that “silliness” to enforce wholesale bans, same as the “silliness” of total breed bans.
There is no difference between their desire to ban “certain types” of guns and “certain types” of dogs.
The line between ‘good guns/bad guns’ grows ever thinner, just as with dog breeds.
It may not be a perfect physical ‘analogy’ match but it is a very close political/ideological one.
If you cannot see the obvious, albeit pernicious connection, you are playing right into their hands.
You must stand for ALL personal freedoms and rights or you stand for none.
Simple as that.
Rather than ask why someone “can’t have a pet tiger”, you should ask why some people can’t own an automatic weapon.
The answer is obvious; because the people who -hated- other people’s “certain types” of things but loved their *own* “certain type” of the exact same thing did -nothing-, not understanding that, in the end, it’s all a progressive, slow moving Juggernaut that intends to eventually *all* forms of that “thing”, be it guns, dogs, knives, vehicles...*whatever*.
Are Rotts evil?
If not, why not?
“Malinois ripped my flesh” ping.
Well, if we are all going to start posting in emoticons, I suppose we ought to post the FR emoticon reference directory...
:) or :-) Happy This was a joke.
;) or ;-) Happily winking I'm pulling your leg.
:P or :-P Sticking out tongue "Nyahh" or "Bleh".
:D or :-D Open-mouthed grin I'm delighted!
:( or :-( Unhappy I'm sad about this.
:~( Crying I'm VERY sad about this.
:-| Unemotional I'm less than thrilled.
>:-( Very unhappy I'm upset!
8-) Wide-eyed happiness This surprised me.
:-O Shouting I'm yelling, and likely upset!
8-O Wide-eyed shouting I'm even more upset!
>8-O Mad wide-eyed shouting Now I'm really angry!
|-| Asleep Zzzzzz...
==|:-) Silly I'm Abraham Lincoln (top hat).
Sorry, call me old school...and still in favor of a ban on all pit bulls in residential neighborhoods.
Your rights end at the tip of my nose. As for religious beliefs, I believe God created the world with good and evil in man along with giving man the abilty to choose between them.
In the wild kingdom, I believe He created the same good and evil, but of couse he did not include reason and choice. I wish He had left out a few things (snakes, tigers, pit bulls and especially the scorpions that have wandered into our house this month) but it was His hand that painted the world and not mine.
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.