Skip to comments.Homeowner kills charging pit bull (AK)
Posted on 08/14/2007 8:38:48 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A homeowner in Palmer shot and wounded a pit bull after it charged at him.
Police say they went to the home last week and found two pit bulls had escaped from a nearby residence. 1 of the dogs charged a neighbor.
Police say the dog tried jumping through the neighbor's screen door last week. When it tried again, police say the homeowner shot it.
The dog's owner arrived within minutes and took the wounded dog to the North Star Animal Hospital.
Police say while discharging a firearm is against a city ordinance, the homeowner was well within his rights in trying to defend himself and his home from the dangerous dog.
Not familiar with the term "CCRs."
Is the subdivision run by a homeowners association?
I like it I like it.
Where is that from?
Thanks for the ping. Yes, my dog is an AmStaff.
There are plenty of stories about these dogs that were raised in a loving environment, and then still caused problems.
But thanks for not disappointing...
Yep. It's a crying shame.
I've campaigned for years to require that dog-issue 38sp's have the finger guard removed. :>)
Unfortunately your post has filled this thread's quota for 'village idiots'.
Thank you for playing and have a great day!
I want one
The only village idiots are those that won’t learn what they are talking about, insisting on urban myth and hysteria in place of cold hard facts.
Those ‘cold hard facts’ are available to you via your own vet.
Who gave that pit bull a credit card anyway?
Great post! Seems like some people’s brain check out when it comes to these dogs...have some in-laws that breed this terrible dogs. They might be ready to quit, now that they are closing in on the second set of major medical bills, thanks to the “dogs of peace”.
Having pits, is like having a wolverine. Might be cool, but it’s a second away from death, or a ruined life. The in - laws know not to even come to my place if they have one of their pit’s with them.
More illogical hysteria hiding behind absurd comparisions nobody with any real knowledge of dogs would ever utter.
You have a fear of dogs, pit bulls? Thats your problem, not the breeds.
But, be that as it may, I agree with you that the ultimate responsibility for the death of this dog lies with its owner.
The official story is that the dog knocked a rifle off a table and the gun went off accidentally, hitting the dog's 21-year-old owner in the back.
"That just doesn't pass the sniff test," said a Memphis Police spokesperson. "What we've heard is that the dog had a bone to pick with his owner and the ruff stuff was no accident."
Police made the collar last night and have now taken the dog in for questioning. So far, however, the dog hasn't rolled over.
"We could be barking up the wrong tree here," said the spokesperson. "He's been kind of whiny and pissy, but he won't speak. I guess you could say he's got us licked, so far. But we're keeping him on a short leash and we're confident we'll get the real poop out of him soon and he'll be eating out of our hands."
The dog is expected to hire famed Memphis law firm Barkin & Howell to represent him.
Wanna see some real flames? Watch...
I take a more catholic view of dogs: I don’t like any of them. I admit that some do well at certain jobs such as herding and aiding the blind, etc., but if the danged things had never been tamed at all we’d have alternatives means to do those jobs. People who “just LOVE” their little poopsie ball of fluff really need to get a life. If dogs must be raised then do the right thing and raise them for butchering.
Yes, like Saint Bernards. Shall we ban them, too? And when we've banned pits and the latent homosexual scumbags now abusing pits move on to some other large breed, will banning that breeed be your solution?
BTW, I notice you didn't answer any of the stuff about property rights and holding scumbags responsible for scumbag behavior. Probably because it's hard to justify screwing over an animal for human behavior, or maybe it's because all the anti-pit arguments are just anti-gun arguments applied to an animal.
But thanks for not disappointing...
You're welcome. John Adams will now fail to disappoint you:
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."--A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
John was talking about taxes, but I think his point still applies. Propertty rights are rights, and we should no more ban a breed because of scumbag owners than we should ban guns or cars because of people who use them improperly.
I can't find "BSL" in the dictionary. Is it related to a Bull Terrier or a Pitt Bull?
No flames here, just a recommendation that you move to Korea.
Breed Specific Legislation
Looks just like Patton's dog "Willie."
“Those cold hard facts are available to you via your own vet.”
Another fact is that if the pit bull had ripped the guys throat out instead of being shot the pit bull lovers would not be commenting at all.....except to use the usual lame argument that it was “not really a pit bull.”
“What if it was another breed?”
What if it was’nt?
Would you feel comfortable if your next door neighbor had a pet Grizzly bear?
Your question assumes something that isn't true--that pit bulls and similar breeds are naturally as dangerous as a grizzly bear. They're not. If they were, I would be calling for special licensing like the ones you must have in order to own a grizzly bear. There's also no comparison because of this: If a scumbag moves in next to me with a maltrained pit bull, I can shoot the pit bull dead with a shotgun round or two as soon as it comes in my yard. Try that with a grizzly.
And yet, I will still answer your question: Yes, if my neighbor had a grizzly bear that was properly licensed, trained, cared for and restrained, I would no more worry about it than I would worry about a cocker spaniel.
BTW, when's the last time you heard of a grizzly mauling the kids in a movie animal trainer's neighborhood? You know why you don't hear about it? Because we hold humans responsible for the training and safety issues involved with the animal. Radical concept there, eh?
When a chihuahua bites someone, who do you hold responsible?
You see, that's the problem. If a dog of any breed has aggression issues that can't be handled quickly (paging Cesar Chavez) they should be put down, not pussyfooted around.
When someone's St. Bernard or chow bites the fourth neighbor in a row and the insurance company stops paying, does it make the news? No. But if it's a pit it would likely be described as "Terrorizing the neighborhood and involved in multiple biting incidents." And yet, all three examples should be on a one-way trip to the vet.
You're wrong. I would comment that some HUMAN had failed to lock up and properly care for their dog, and that said HUMAN should be tried for murder in the first or second degree and put on a Texas-style fast track to execution.
Guess that wasn't a fact, but just your opinion. Seems like a lot of that going around here in this thread.
BTW, feel free to provide proof that terriers of this type are inherently dangerous.
Find a post where I have actually said the breed should be banned.
Those folks who defend the breed might be idiots, but I say let them get exactly what they deserve re: the justice system, for being so stupid.
There are probably thousands of dog breeds out there, most of which have a much lower propensity for problems.
It’s a free country, to be sure. But I will nod in approval every time some retard with one of these dogs gets sued or fined because of their poor decision making.
According to the CDC, during a 10 year study Pit Bulls (and related breeds) LED ALL OTHER DOG BREEDS IN FATAL ATTACKS, at nearly twice the rate as the number two breed (Rottweilers). FYI, the St Bernard that you snidely mention above has ONE fatality over that 10 year period to the Pitt Bull's SIXTY-SIX. But feel free to keep quoting the misleading "dog BITE" statistics to further muddy the waters.
The above should’ve been posted to you, too.
“BTW, feel free to provide proof that terriers of this type are inherently dangerous.”
Oh, you do not follow news reports? Read papers or magazines? Do your own research. Oh, I know what’s coming....It’s the MSM dog-haters, etc. Go head and entertain me with anectdotes and BS statistics about how they are not dangerous, I have come to expect it and I can always use a good laugh.
Sixty-six fatal attacks in ten years? Out of how many thousands (or hundreds of thousands, or millions) of dogs?
Looks to me like we need to prohibit the breeding of humans.
66 probably wouldn’t seem so insignificant to you if a member of your family was one of the fatalities.
Additionally, those account for only the INCIDENTS, and not for instances where there were multiple dogs involved. When you count individual dogs, the number nearly doubles
This fact is the rebuttal to those who claim that PB’s are no more dangerous than nay other breed.
No matter how much you want to minimize the deaths, or spin them into something meaningless to you, clearly they are more dangerous than any other.
Since you mention 66 fatalities it appears that you are speaking of the 20 year study (1979-1998).
And just so we have our facts straight and don't mislead ourselves,
during that period 7 deaths were attributed to purebred St. Bernards.
I believe that if we are going to use that study in our discussion,
we should at least make note of the conclusions of the study...
ConclusionsAlthough fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dogs breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.As well in an interview with 2 of the authors of the study we find them expressing these concerns...
A few years ago, the AVMA conducted a joint study with the CDC to assess fatal dog bites and make recommendations on how communities could protect their citizens. Golab co-authored the report with the CDCs Dr. Julie Gilchrist. It is frustrating for me personally, Golab says, because people who want to enact breed-specific legislation keep using that paper to try and make a case against pit bulls. But all we did was match breeds with fatalities over a 20-year period. And the numbers show that the breed that goes to the top changes over time, which suggests that something other than breed is responsible for the fatalities. But people try to use just the last few years in the table, which shows pit bulls and Rottweilers on top. The whole point of our summary was to explain why you cant do that. But the media and the people who want to support their case just dont look at that.Now I'd like to address Mr. Silverbacks challenge to anyone to prove these dogs
...the CDCs Gilchrist argues that it changes over time based on what breeds are popular. So if we enact breed-specific legislation, she explains, the breeds involved are going to vary. The more encompassing way is to deal with dangerous dogs so that every dog and every owner is covered all the time.
Potentially dangerous on the other hand is an attribute we can apply to all dogs.
We can also distinguish levels of potential dangerousness.
Obviously size and correspondingly breed is a important factor,
but there are other factors that influence the potential danger of a particular dog.
Sex of the dog...
"in the last 6 years (Jan. 2000 thru Dec. 2005) reveal that overwhelmingly the dogs involved in fatal attacks are males. In the fatal attacks during this six year period, over 91% of these cases a male dog was involved, (i.e. either a single male dog or a male dog accompanied by other males and/or female dogs).
"examination of the dogs involved in fatal attacks from Jan. 2000 thru Dec. 2005, reveal that the overwhelming majority of dogs involved were unaltered.Of the fatalities during this 6 year period, 92% of the dogs involved were unaltered (not spayed or neutered)."
In addition there are other factors that I will just list and provide a link for additional details...
Chained or restrained
Family vs Resident dog
Dogs obtained for protection, guarding, fighting or image enhancement
Multiple dogs and pack mentality
Irresponsible owners and gross negligence
Before I go on to my conclusion I'd like to touch on the importance of determining the total population of breed/types
before making a judgment based on total attacks that a particular breed
is more dangerous than another breed of comparable size.
The CDC study quoted above touches on this issue...
The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available. Considering American Kennel Club registration data for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in popularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths (24,195 registrations from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273 registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and 692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33 deaths). However, official registration or licensing data are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their dogs and, thus, should not be used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds.And from my copy of Fatal Dog Attacks by Karen Delise...
The St.Bernard presents the case that even breeds with a reputation for gentleness and tolerance can wind up in statistics on fatal dog attacks.With regard to "pit bulls" the estimates of the population vary widely.
From 1970-1979 the St. Bernard breed experienced a sudden surge in popularity. More St. Bernards were registered (n=235,258) in this ten-year span then would be registered (n=103,182) in the next twenty years (1980-1999). Not surprisingly, more than half of the fatal attacks associated with this breed occurred from 1970-1979.
Statistically St Bernards have killed more humans (n=15) than Doberman Pinschers (n=13). Therefore should the St.Bernard be considered a dangerous dog due to these statistics? No, since this breed's reputation for friendliness and gentleness is not unfounded.
...The appearance of this breed alongside Pit Bulls and Rottweilers should serve notice that any large powerful breed can be responsible for fatal attacks, and labeling any breed viscious is never an accurate assessment. More importantly, it should emphasize that the action of a few dogs do not define the breed.
Finally, I think it's safe to say that all Freepers are compassionate, caring individuals to whom the 100's of deaths and the 10's of thousands of disfiguring bites due to other breeds carry just as much importance as those caused by "pit bulls".
The question is what can we as conservative who believe in personal responsibility and accountability,
in as little government interference in our lives as possible
suggest as actions that will reduce the number of attacks.
My belief is that a multi-prong approach is needed.
First of all let's drop the hyperbole and cliches, striving instead for accurate data.
Let's look at news reports with a critical eye, trying to analyze and extract the factors contributing to the attack.
Let's generalize those findings to all dog ownership.
What to do with that information?
Too often well intentioned but ignorant or naive people become dog owners.
How can this be countered? During the licensing process?
The Law...First off no law is worth the paper it's written on if it's not enforced.
So strict and rigorous enforcement of existing laws is essential. Starting with licensing and leash/control laws
Before we try and solve the problem by writing more laws let's enforce the ones on the books already.
Too many times before a tragedy there have been previous complaints about the owner.
If the laws need to be stricter with harsher penalties then let's do that.
Anyway... I've gone on more than enough and I'm pupped out. Good night all...
Big Wimps, unless they've been taught otherwise... or you are an *obvious* threat to their master or mistress. Then you'd best hope you have a chain mail turtleneck.
Why would you send the owner a bill in either case? Isn't the breed the problem? Aren't you a "village idiot" for holding any human responsible for their dog's behavior?
So basically, you have the exact same position as the Freepers who support the dogs (hold the human owners responsible) but you feel it necessary to call us idiots and lump us in with the sort of "retard" who would make such a dog into a danger to his neighbors.
Any particular reason you felt you had to be a putz about it?
And now (apparently because you're a putz) you are accusing me of something I haven't done. Now let's have a little lesson in statistics and quoting them, shall we?
1. The CDC study you cited says that the danger of the breed cannot be evaluated without a great deal of additional data. Here's a tip: If the scientists doing a study think it isn't proof of anything, it's best you don't try to fill in the gaps for them.
2. The argument you're making here is exactly the sort of that gun control weenies use to take away 2nd Amendment rights. "CDC studies show that almost all gun deaths are due to handguns, and look at how many kids get killed with them, we could save so many lives with a ban" blah, blah, blah. Seems you've got a flaw if you're using the same tactics as the Brady Bunch.
FYI, the St Bernard that you snidely mention above has ONE fatality over that 10 year period to the Pitt Bull's SIXTY-SIX.
Just wait. When weenies who can't figure out how to punish dog abusers ban the breed, they'll just move on to another. Soon enough they'll get to Bernards, and probably breed them for that bad temperment gene that crops up occasionally.
Since when does "I saw it on the news" qualify as proof of anything? If we start basing legislation on media whining we'll have no guns left by the end of the year, and that's just one example. I'm looking for science, and the reason you're trying to mock my request is because you haven't got any.
But go on, tell me that a bunch of folks who put rocket engines under the gas tank of a truck are good sources on a science/saefty issue and then act all superior about it. That's pretty cheap entertainment for me.
Hysteria requires so little tinder to become a great inferno.
That being said, I'm not sure what he would have done had he not been on a leash that was in his owner's hand.