Man Shoots Attacking Pit Bulls Off Neighbor

Local 6 (Florida) ^ | July 16, 2006

[solosmoke]

But what "damage" was done? Normally reporters love to write about the stitches, bruises, and other horrific details so important in a "well rounded" article, but here, all they say is that the dogs kept closing in on the guy. I am around tons of dogs every day, and I must say, if a dog that strong wanted to attack you, there would be no "closing in", it would happen in a split second.

That is an important question because if the dogs weren't attacking the guy and they were shot, and the report was made, then it would all be a lie. Sure the guy might have thought he was going to get bit, but it appears that he wasn't. The story was made anyway, calling it an attack. It's unfortunate, but it happens all the time, and reporters rarely find the time to correct the story once it is published.

If it is found out that the guy was bitten, of course that's a different story, and the dogs should be euthanized, but nothing in the report said that, so it seems a bit fishy to me.

[solosmoke]

That wasn't an excuse. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was questioning whether that was what happened because it is odd that they would just let their friend's dog around a stray without a care in the world, and if the pictures are actually of the two dogs, then I would say it could very well be a male and female involved, and for some that can be a tempting thing.

All of you calling this an attack need to show where exactly the report says the dogs actually bit the guy. And what does it matter how many shots the dog took? That doesn't make it vicious any more than it did walking around the guy, which is pretty much what seems to have happened.

[sinkspur]

All of you calling this an attack need to show where exactly the report says the dogs actually bit the guy. And what does it matter how many shots the dog took? That doesn't make it vicious any more than it did walking around the guy, which is pretty much what seems to have happened.

You're a tough case of pit-bull-love, you are.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

[solosmoke]

Show me where it says he was bitten and I will concede. I am not making excuses. If you can't show me, then you are speculating just as much. It doesn't say either way.

I am not a "tough case", I simply don't accept everything I read as truth. I think many of these stories are exaggerated to make them more profitable. The news isn't a government entity. They exist for the sole purpose of making money off of tragedies and amazements.

[Stoat]

He must have had a tight choke on his shotgun or took a very close shot.

I think that you're right.  There's a video interview with the parties involved here

WFTV.com - News - Pit Bull Owner Defended Dog After Alleged Attack

and there are just a few frames of the shotgun, which is an over-under model.  Those are popular for bird hunting as well as skeet shooting, and so I'm guessing that it was a tight choke and a light load.  I'm sure that it wasn't 00 buckshot or one shot would have blown that dog apart.

[Stoat]

An essential point that is being missed here is that by law and in any US state, in a case like this, no "damage" needs to be done by the animal(s).  The victim said that he was in fear of his life, the neighbor (a legal witness) concurs and the police state that he was being attacked in their official report, which is a legal document..  It doesn't need to get to the point of the victim having his face chewed off in order for the dog to be legally put down.

An analogy that may make this easier to understand is a situation in which a human is being threatened by an armed criminal.  The law does not require that the criminal shoot you in the head first in order for you to have the legal right to protect yourself.  If some crack addict tries to mug me, you can rest assured that he is going to die long before he gets the chance to cut me open with his switchblade.  In that sort of situation, I am clearly and legitimately in fear of my life because I am being confronted with an armed, violent criminal.  The law is solidly on my side.

In the case of this story, we have a 61 year old man with a heart condition who is being violently confronted by not one but two large dogs that clearly show aggression.  On top of that, they are a breed of dog which many people are aware features a patented, award-winning "locking jaw" mechanism where, once latched onto a limb, oftentimes requires killing the animal and then breaking the jaw or skull to remove it, as it stays locked even after death. Such a dog, running in a pack and bent upon terrorizing people or other animals is clearly a threat to life and property by any legal definition.

This man clearly was in fear for his life, and quite legitimately. as well.

[Stoat]

Addendum...

I'm seeing documentation online that the "locking jaw" of the pitbull is a legend and apparently is not true, but this doesn't change the relevance of my previous post. The fact remains that many people understand this to be true, and so it enhances their fear of the animal.

Regardless of this minor point, the man was legitimately in fear of his life and was completely justified in protecting himself with deadly force.

[Jeff Chandler]

It really is amazing how in every dangerous circumstance there seems to be a cadre of enablers refusing to accept reality. Look at the people who feel sympathy for gang bangers, or terrorists, or death row inmates, or pit bulls. Sympathy for the devil?

Just amazing.

[Wristpin]

Pit Bulls are getting shot in off territory sustained attacks nearly every other day. You are the perfect example why this breed is in trouble.

Here's more about the two heros and the zero remorse Pit dirtbag.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-lpitbull1806jul18,0,5532828.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-lake

[BJungNan]

Anti-Freeze time!

[BJungNan]

I hope they really were attacking and not just "existing" near this guy.

I hope that the one that did not get shot has already been poisoned and is dead.

[Stoat]

It really is amazing how in every dangerous circumstance there seems to be a cadre of enablers refusing to accept reality. Look at the people who feel sympathy for gang bangers, or terrorists, or death row inmates, or pit bulls. Sympathy for the devil?

Just amazing.

Agreed.  I believe that in many cases it's a result of the combined incredible wealth and freedom that we enjoy in the USA.  When people lead comparatively easy and carefree lives, when judging against most other nations, a complacency sets in as well as a general distancing from reality, coupled with a relativist outlook.

I'm guessing that most people who live in poor countries are usually more reality-based in their outlooks because they are confronted with hard, cold, reality every moment of their lives; they are not provided with the luxurious barriers to reality that we take for granted and oftentimes forget about here in the USA.  Here, if you are cold in your home, you (usually) don't need to go out into the snow and chop wood for the fire, you just walk over to the thermostat and turn it up.  If someone is bothering you, you put out a no-contact order on them.  If you are hungry, you pick up the telephone and order a pizza and it will be at your doorstep in 20 minutes....you don't even have to know how to cook!.  .  I recall that a few years ago there was some sort of international women's conference held, I believe, in India.  Of course, the NOW gang and all of the hard-left militant feminists from rich Western countries went there and tried to indoctrinate the women of India just as they do here in universities.  They told the women about how they were oppressed by the evil men of their country because women weren't featured prominently in positive role models in Indian literature or on TV, and all of the usual Marxist claptrap that they spew here in the West.  The Indian women utterly rejected them because their concerns were FAR more reality-based....they wanted for girls to be able to go to school and be educated, they wanted some basic rights so that their husbands wouldn't be able to beat them bloody every night...they wanted protection from forced abortions and honor killings.....basic life and death stuff like that.  The militant feminists were completely blindsided by this; it was a total shock to them.

In the case of animals here in the USA, many people who are lonely come to view their pets as even more of a beloved family member than their relatives....it's an easy mindset to get into because pets will deliver true love without qualification and absolute loyalty....all things that are very very difficult to find among people these days.

[Stoat]

UPDATE TO ALL

A related Florida news item from today:

orl-vdog1806jul18,0,5806317

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-vdog1806jul18,0,5806317.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

Mayor pledges tough dog-bite rule

Deltona leaders hear residents demand that dangerous dogs be removed.

Christine Dellert
Sentinel Staff Writer

July 18, 2006

DELTONA -- City commissioners on Monday pledged to toughen up a city rule so that dangerous dogs can be removed from neighborhoods after just one bite.

Several members agreed that Deltona should tweak its own ordinance, instead of following a state law that allows a dog to attack two pets before removing it from the city.

"We're on it," Mayor Dennis Mulder told nearly a dozen concerned pet owners and residents who said they have had recent run-ins with aggressive dogs.

Mulder's comments came a week after a 3-year-old poodle named Toby was mauled and killed by a neighborhood pit bull terrier. People outraged about the attack and the city's response expressed frustration during Monday's meeting.

"We now live in fear that those dogs could get loose again and attack our children or our family pets," said Toby's owner, Theresa De Los Rios.

Animal control officers returned the pit bull to its owner, Timothy Amende, after the July 9 attack and issued Amende a citation for letting Big Boy and another pit bull roam the neighborhood unleashed.

The attack brought to light the city's policy on how officials handle such attacks. Even though the city rule says that a dog could be deemed a public nuisance after it injuries another animal, officials acknowledged they don't use that law because it is harder to enforce.

The state law allows city officials to remove a dog immediately -- but it takes two attacks to do so. The city rules say one bite is enough, but officials don't have the power to take the dog until after an investigation and any court action.

City officials pledged to soon come up with a one-bite rule with teeth.

Meanwhile, De Los Rios continued her campaign and petition drive at Monday's meeting for the removal of Big Boy. While her great-nephew held up a poster of Toby, she told city officials about the 200 signatures calling for a dangerous dog crackdown.

"That dog should be immediately removed," De Los Rios said. "I don't want this to die out."

Christine Dellert can be reached at cdellert@orlandosentinel.comor 386-851-7935.

[dc27]

I have two shotguns that I use for Trap/Skeet. An O/U with 30" barrel and a semi-auto with 28" barrel. I need to pick up a mossberg for home use. A shorter barrel with more rounds is more suited for home use. There is a freeper, IIRC, loads 2 #8 shot, 2 #4 shot, and 2 slugs in his pump action for home defense.

[csvset]

The dog that was killed required not one, but TWO, full frontal blasts from a shotgun to go down.

Keep shooting the bastards until they stop breathing.

A neighbor and I had to shoot a Pit Bull that attacked another neighbor's Beagle.

I hit it with three .357 rounds, the other neighbor finished him with six 9mm.

[Jeff Chandler]

In the case of animals here in the USA, many people who are lonely come to view their pets as even more of a beloved family member than their relatives....it's an easy mindset to get into because pets will deliver true love without qualification and absolute loyalty....all things that are very very difficult to find among people these days.

Dennis Prager had a discussion about this very subject the other day.

[solosmoke]

"The fact remains that many people understand this to be true, and so it enhances their fear of the animal. "


This is exactly why people like me have to even be on here discussing it. There is so much misinformation out there that people are really ignoring the bigger problem. It isn't the dogs, because they can't keep themselves on a chain, in a yard, or socialized. That is up to their owners, unfortunately. There is no question that there are dogs out there that should not be alive. I don't believe entire breeds should be banned, however, because there is too much evidence stating that the breed has nothing to do with attacks. Yes, breeds like pit bull types and rottweilers are very strong, so when they attack it is often very serious. That doesn't mean they are more prone to attack, or that the breeds are inherently vicious. Evidence exists that states the contrary, in fact.

"Regardless of this minor point, the man was legitimately in fear of his life and was completely justified in protecting himself with deadly force."

The problem that is occurring right now is fear-based. Yes, there have been deaths from pit bulls. There have also been several deaths from approximately fifty breeds, and some in pretty large quantities. Pit bull type dogs are the most popular breed right now, perhaps second to labs and retriever types.

The media does a horrible job of researching their stories, and is notorious for exaggerations, false "facts" and opinions that somehow manage to get slipped into the story. This is especially true with any dog attack. Just think about the years before pit bulls were in the spotlight. Everyone was scared of rotties, dobies, and chows. The news fed on these for years before the pit bull came along.

The name itself is pretty intimidating, and with all the folklore and mythology involved, it's really no wonder why there are reports of these dogs wreaking havok on a frequent basis. It's too easy to profit from stories invoking fear and rage. I have heard of many people who have tried contacting news reporters about vicious attacks by other breeds of dog, only to be turned down because it just wasn't news. But any mention of a pit bull will have more than one news van there for a story.

So you have a large percentage of the population believing these stories because they trust the news to bring them unbiased facts. They aren't dog lovers, don't research the breed, and know literally only what they see on the news. They shouldn't have to do their own research to find out the truth, because most people don't really care all that much, and it isn't their job to know everything. It isn't their dog, so why should they care about the fate of a breed of dog which is thought of as vicious? This is where I really find the situation sad.

These dogs can be wonderful pets if raised properly. Yes, quite a few of them have dog aggression, but any dog breed can, especially when talking about terriers. This is something that can be handled quite easily with a responsible owner. It should never come up that someone's dog was allowed to roam around and scare people and kill dogs or cats. It happens because the ignorant and selfish are here in numbers. They don't think they should have to restrain their dogs, and they don't really care if their dog attacks someone else.

Because of a combination of greedy media and irresponsible owners, we now live in a society of fear. People see a dog that even remotely looks like a pit bull and they run for cover. It's really quite ridiculous. Meanwhile, over 99% of the four to six million pit bulls are happily chewing on bones, being pet by their humans, or lounging on their beds, inside, not attacking, not harrassing, not even seen.

There are laws in many places now that say if a dog is threatening you, you can kill it. This can be great for people who don't want to have to answer for protecting their lives. On the other hand, when a dog escapes and runs the streets, if it's a lab, you can bet that dog will continue to run around without a care. No one would shoot one, even though in many cities they rank #1 for bites. They just aren't seen as aggressive dogs.

I agree that the dog in this situation needed to be shot simply because the man had a heart condition, and there is no reason for him to suffer because someone else cannot keep their "pet" inside. However, I do not think every situation in which a dog is loose and just happens to be a pit bull requires guns or poison.

There was nothing said about this man being bitten, although I can see the police making a report that says the man was attacked simply because police are human just like the rest of us. If the man was scared and the dogs didn't just leave, it is written as an attack, because what else could it be? That is totally plausible. It doesn't mean that was what the dogs were doing, but there really is no way to know now, unless a second report comes out. It doesn't matter anyway, because one of them is dead, and the news report has already been published.

My point is, if it is ok to shoot a dog that comes up to you and scares you, and only pit bulls are getting shot, even though other breeds are attacking quite often, (approximately 333,000 attacks a month in the U.S.)I think it's safe to assume that the amount of people affected by the news reports must be very large. It is unfortunate, because the only breed getting shot is the pit bull type, even though other dogs are attacking everywhere, and some quite severely. You really have the media to blame for this. They have created fear of only one type of dog, making it seem like that is the only breed that can attack, and now they are creating stories that otherwise never would have been because of the amount of fear the public has over this issue, and in turn the public is taking matters into their own hands.

As a breed, the dogs are very tempermentally sound. This cannot be argued. This is fact, and if anyone is curious I can provide quite a few resources about this subject (pit bulls have been studied extensively, and all the information is available to the public). You would never know this if you only read the news and listened to co-workers talk about the dog they heard about.

[Stoat]

I do admire your passion, I really do, but I would wish to suggest that you are pursuing this in the wrong way.  This appears to be much like a religion for you and that's perfectly fine, but to a generally-disinterested observer such as myself your tone comes across as condescending and you will not win many converts to your point of view with the way that your passions are being projected.

When I say that I'm largely disinterested, I mean to say that it really matters not a whit to me as to what breed a dog is and what it's supposed characteristics are, because I will be delighted to kill any dog or human that legitimately and legally places me in fear of my life.  There's nothing at all wrong with that and it's fully supported by law in all states.

Regardless of whether anything that you say about a pit bull's supposed characteristics  and temperament as a breed is true or not, the fact of the matter is that what you are dealing with is a PR problem, and public perceptions are indeed important because they can move legislation.  When the primary basis for your argument is that it's the media's fault and the public just doesn't understand the "real" truth about the matter, you sound very much like CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) when they release public statements chastising non-muslims for DARING to suggest that terrorism has anything at all to do with Islam, and how anybody who says such a thing is a racist and should be thrown in jail and the media is oppressing us and America is so very evil and yadda yadda yadda.

Just as Muslims in America need to do FAR more to root out ilsamofascist sympathizers in their midst, pitbull aficionados need to do FAR more than whatever they are currently doing now to hold owners of vicious dogs responsible for what their pets do and stop with this "oh you just don't understand " garbage, which is essentially telling people that they are stupid.  Nobody likes to hear that and it's an immediate turn-off.  Instead, promote legislation that provides super-stiff penalties for any pet owner whose pet causes harm or fear in a community.  This will instantly legitimize you and your cause.  Telling people that they are stupid and don't understand when their neighbor's child has been mauled doesn't move you toward your goal.

A good analogy is with the firearms issue in the US.  Nobody is more anti-crime and hard on criminals than law-abiding gun owners and organizations such as the NRA.  They make it absolutely crystal clear where they stand, holding criminals, not an inanimate gun, responsible for their actions.  Unfortunately, pitbulls are not inanimate objects and they do indeed have a mind of their own, so the analogy is not perfect but it's still valid IF what you say is true about them being essentially gentle animals.

If what you say is true about pitbulls being no more harmful than other dogs and you are serious about legitimizing the breed, then you need to come down hard on irresponsible dog owners, support tough legislation and above all demonstrate considerably more sympathy for people who are legitimately terrified of a pack of vicious dogs than what you have shown so far in this thread.  Stop blaming people who are terrified of a pack of vicious, snarling dogs because, believe it or not, a pack of vicious snarling dogs is indeed a terrifying thing to any sane person, and when you instantly side with the dogs rather than the victim, you will do nothing but turn people off.

That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I'm particularly interested in this issue, as that's not the reason why I posted this article.

[Stoat]

I have two shotguns that I use for Trap/Skeet. An O/U with 30" barrel and a semi-auto with 28" barrel. I need to pick up a mossberg for home use. A shorter barrel with more rounds is more suited for home use. There is a freeper, IIRC, loads 2 #8 shot, 2 #4 shot, and 2 slugs in his pump action for home defense.

That's great!  I have a Remington 1100 semiauto that's been modified with an assault style stock and extended magazine which is part of my home defense arsenal.  I also load it with alternating types of shot (currently 00 buck and slugs) so that I should be able to take care of most problems by shooting twice.

I've always wanted to try skeet shooting, as it looks like grand screaming fun.  I need to enlarge my collection with a long barreled O/U as you have...I'm guessing that I most likely won't have very good results with a riot gun configuration.

[dc27]

Take a look at the Browning Citori line for O/U. The proce isn't too bad and it is a very good shotgun for clays.