Skip to comments.Owner says girl was too close to dog
Posted on 05/21/2010 4:46:38 PM PDT by solosmoke
GIRARD - The owner of the dog whose bite left a 12-year-old with more than 100 stitches is sorry the girl was injured but says she was not bitten while walking past the 15-month chocolate Labrador as she claims, rather because she was too close to it.
"Destiny (Turner) walked over to Schnook and put her face next to the dog's face," Christina Morris said Thursday. "That's when he bit her face."
The girl claims she was walking toward her house, 211 Broadview, about 7 p.m. Sunday when the chained dog leaped on top of her and began biting her face.
Morris says she has told Destiny and other kids in the neighborhood on numerous occasions not to go too near to the dog, which she said was chained to a tree in the rear of the house Sunday.
Morris said she has owned Schnook for five to six months and that he listens to commands.
"He is basically a good dog," she said. "Yes, he can be aggressive at times. Kids in the neighborhood throw rocks at him at times. I think something may have happened at the prior owner's home." Schnook, meanwhile, has been kept at the home of Nick Spelich, 622 Johnson Plank Road, Bazetta. Spelich is Morris' sister's boyfriend.
(Excerpt) Read more at tribtoday.com ...
“Too bad the owners think it’s acceptable to keep an aggressive dog chained up outside.”
Because running around the neighborhood is a more acceptable option?
Keeping a dog chained tends to make a dog that is inclined to bite even more inclined to bite. The owner is clearly at fault here, and is an idiot to boot. He’s an irresponsible pet owner. He knew the dog had a tendency to bite and yet he put the dog in a situation in which he could bite someone. I suspect he will be sued and I suspect he will lose.
BTW people don’t realize that labs are not the same as golden retrievers and are somewhat more prone to bite.
No, they have a responsibility to keep the dog confined. Period. Was your question really a serious question?
A lot of dogs don’t like someone getting right in their faces but it sounds like the owner needed to keep the dog someplace where a child wasn’t likely to do it.
My Jack Russell is the same way with strangers but he’s in a fenced yard. He’s very friendly otherwise. I have made sure that he knows my neighbor’s grandkids and is friendly but they still know better than to get in his face unless he wants to lick them.
I hope his homeowners’ insurance refuses to cover this, and he has to pay for his stupidity out of his own pocket.
I got bitten by a dog a few years ago. Luckily, it didn’t require any stitches. But it was very painful nontheless and got infected. And I am a grown man. I can’t imagine the pain that 12 year old girl must be going through with over 100 stitches. A mauling indeed. I think that dog should be put down.
We had a GSD when I was a kid. She was great with us, and generally great with the neighborhood kids. HOWEVER if she thought someone was hurting us (even if they were just playing) she would not hesitate to bite (and almost did bite a couple of times, and was only stopped because someone else was quicker than she was). We kept her in the house or in a securely fenced yard. She had a correct temperament for a GSD, but I would not have kept her tied up in the front yard as that would have been asking for trouble.
I think most dog bites are caused by stupid owners, and usually it’s kids and usually it’s in the face. You sound like a responsible dog owner.Can we just clone you?
“Was your question really a serious question?”
Sorry then. :)
BS! he should have been more vigilant and pulled the dog away.
Oops I jumped before reading the whole story.
So I leave him chained in the yard, where's he's an easy target!
What a tool.
I have two rules for being a responsible dog owner.
1. Understand that its a dog and it will do what dogs do.
2. Let it be a dog.
what the h...is a GSD?
We’re not all in the club.
“Because running around the neighborhood is a more acceptable option?”<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I was under the impression that a third option (keeping the dog inside where pets belong) was available. Either that or euthanasia. Responsible dog owners don’t put their dogs in situations where they are sure to fail.
German Shepherd Dog.
I thought that being chained up was confined? Silly me. I guess the dog must be kept in a small pin or something. Also, the kids had been warned. What else was the owner to do?
I’m sorry if I was snippy...watching the news on fox I get cranky..ha. Love shepherds.
The owner was aware of past aggressive behavior of the dog.
The dog should have been secured in a locked enclosure that prevented any contact with the child.
“What else was the owner to do?”<<<<<<
Not have an aggressive dog? And if they had to have it, they should keep it away from all children, especially when they aren’t around. Kids aren’t able to make grown-up decisions because they lack the ability to rationalize or the maturity to consider the consequences of their actions. And chaining a dog will simply make matters worse, as it frustrates them by creating a constant stressor, as well as making some dogs much more protective of their area than they would be otherwise.
Yes. Except baths. :)
German Shepherd Dog (just quicker to type, sorry)
I don’t know, do you consider a dog, known to bite being tied up, where a child can wander close enough to get within biting range to be sufficiently confined? If so I would like to suggest that you might consider not getting a dog, or if you do, get advice from other people before you decide how to keep it. Also, you might get advice from people about children and the likelihood of their always following advice. And you might also keep a lawyer on retainer.
A small pen? No. A properly fenced yard would work, however keeping the dog inside the house would be ideal. Chained dogs are MUCH more likely to bite, by the way. Bear in mind that the owner KNEW THE DOG WAS PRONE TO BITE.
Chaining a dog makes it hyper-territorial, they get more aggressive because they literally cannot get away. Kids throwing rocks at a dog that apparently has been abused in the past didn’t help matters at all.
If the girl entered the man’s property and went within the radius of the chain, she’s not exactly an innocent victim, but the law is such that if the property wasn’t posted, the property owner may well be held liable.
Why anyone concerned about animal abuse would chain a dog, a form of abuse itself in my opinion, is another question.
Parents who do not teach their children *never* to stick their faces right up to an unknown dog are irresponsible. Staring at the dog is perceived as aggression by the dog, too.
So many things went wrong here. They’ll probably end up putting the dog down, but of all the parties to this, he was least in control and did what dogs sometimes do when challenged, especially abused dogs.
It’s a pity.
Im sorry if I was snippy...watching the news on fox I get cranky..ha. Love shepherds.
You weren’t snippy! And yes, the news makes me crazy these days. I loved my old girl, but these days I feel safer with goldens, they are a little more predictable with strangers. Then again, if someone attacks me I suspect they will sit back and watch.
It really is too bad that most people (kids especially) have no clue about dog behavior and how to avoid getting bitten. But it is what it is and I suspect the law will see it in favor of the child’s family.
There’s more than enough stupidity by all involved to go around with this.
A girl is going to be scarred for life due to her own lack of caution, her parents’ lack of supervision and lack of teaching her how to deal with strange animals, and the dog’s owner, who chained an abused dog, let it remain there despite neighborhood kids throwing rocks at it by his own admission, and not devising some means of keeping people away from an overly-agressive dog, that is probably going to pay with his life for this.
It’s just dumb. Sad, and dumb. The girl’s parents shouldn’t get off scot-free either, they’re the ones who let a twelve year old girl roam the neighborhood unsupervised and didn’t teach her not to trespass and to leave barking, chained dogs alone.
“If the little girl came into the yard and was attacked who’s fault is that?”<<<<<<<<<<
The dog owner. They already knew the dog was aggressive, yet they felt it was perfectly fine to play with the dog around the child. They could have told the child to leave, brought the dog inside, or (my personal choice) euthanize it when they discovered it was unstable and adopt a friendly dog.
The key here is going to be that they knew the dog was likely to bite and they kept the dog in a manner in which the dog could get to a child and bite that child. That’s all that’s going to matter. You may not like it, but that’s how it’s going to work out.
Hey, who was that guy saying that only pit bulls and rotties maul people? We should ping him.
Yes, he is saying” Dad...watch me now! Watch me run now! are you watching now??”
Why should the dog be put down?
Well, since animal control always just kills the dog, I guess the owner should just save taxpayer money and kill their dog when they bring them home.
What should we do with the children’s parents? They obviously did not take precautions to ensure the safety of the child.
Why dont we just euthanize all the dogs out there. They are all potentially dangerous. I was bit on the nose by a chihuahua.
I don’t know, do you think 12 year old children should be locked up? I don’t have enough info to make that determination. Do you have kids? Are they locked up?
>The owner is clearly at fault here, and is an idiot to boot. Hes an irresponsible pet owner. He knew the dog had a tendency to bite and yet he put the dog in a situation in which he could bite someone.<
Not only that, he had an attractive nuisance. Like a swimming pool, if you have a dog that a kid can get to, if the kid gets bitten, you will be held responsible. He can say the kid was “too close” all he wants. It is up to him to not put a dangerous dog in a situation where it is accessible to a minor child.
He’s liable. Hope his homeowner’s insurance is paid up.
I dont debate strawmen.
The children’s parents did not do a good enough job teaching the danger of animals. As long as children are not able to make reasonable decisions for themselves, the parents are responsible.
“Why dont we just euthanize all the dogs out there. They are all potentially dangerous. I was bit on the nose by a chihuahua.”
Why not just take responsibility for our pets? Is it really that much of an inconvenience to know your dog’s temperament and train/socialize/restrain it accordingly? You would think people were being asked to do something beyond their means! That’s what it takes if you want to have pets. I would say the same for those that don’t feel the need to teach their children about safety and supervise them if they are young. It’s just asking for trouble. Dogs are just dumb animals, and cannot comprehend morality or consequences. It is up to the owners to make sure their dogs are not a danger, and these people failed to do that.
Because the dog has demonstrated that he will viciously attack (non-violent) people. Its one thing for a dog to attack someone breaking in or hurting its owner—its another thing for it to maul a 12 year old girl. If I owned such a dog, I’d have it put down—for liability reasons.
How is killing a dog that bites taking responsibility?
And who made you the bureaucrat in charge of telling people how to raise their animals? Did the dog seek anyone out and bite?
The dog attacked someone who was encroaching on its territory.
And it shouldnt matter if it attacks a 12 year old girl or a 40 year old or some guy breaking in. How is that different than the rationale for a hate crime - the crime is worse based on who is hurt.
Must be nice to be able to kill something just to avoid liability issues.
Must be nice to be able to kill something just to avoid liability issues.
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.