Skip to comments.Pit bull apologists always sing the same tune
Posted on 10/16/2008 10:28:46 PM PDT by Chet 99
Pit bull apologists always sing the same tune
I'm deeply saddened by the tragic death of yet another innocent child, Katya Todesco, due to what should be defined as an act of domestic terrorism, perpetrated by the dog's owner.
As a father of two children, and a responsible owner of two dogs, I know both sides of this sad story. Yet the story is nearly always the same with a pit bull attack: a child attacked, sometimes killed; a funeral with a small casket is held, and the owners walk free, perplexed at how their "good dog" could have done such a thing.
Then it's the usual defenders like Kathy Jenks employing distorted logic to claim that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog, which anyone with two eyes and one ounce of common sense knows is absurd.
She cites Labrador retrievers as one of the "biters" in a dog bite study, which is false logic, since Labs are America's most popular dog.
But Labs aren't known for killing people; pit bulls are, and the facts support this. In fact, a University of Minnesota study of 19 years listed human deaths from pit bulls at 66, Rottweilers at 39. Labradors and Chihuahuas somehow escaped the study as killers.
The Clifton study, performed over 24 years, lists pit bulls 5,500 percent more likely to kill a human than a Labrador. Coincidentally, no insurance company will insure a homeowner with either a pit bull or a Rottweiler.
Also, the pit bull breed has been banned outright in 25 U.S. cities so far, and six countries and many other major foreign cities, for good reason: The breed is a menace that has no place in our communities and should be banned nationally.
But if we refuse to protect our kids from these dangerous animals, at the very least manslaughter charges should be brought against pit bull owners whose dogs kill.
It's okay to kill improperly supervised kids? Gotta protect those meth labs.
Apparently they're both full of sh!&.
Clue: Don't approach any dog like he or she is your friend. Just like people, some of them are just plain nuts, some have been beaten or ignored until they are unstable from fear, some have been over coddled and are prone to biting or soiling carpets. However (concentrating on dogs); most pits (any of the various breeds identified as such) are embarrassingly nice if you allow them to be.
Inconvenient truth: The big dig on 'pit bulls' is that their jaws are so powerful, true, but I've watched mine carry a tomato around the yard for days without leaving a mark. Oh, next time you are at a bird farm or pet store ask if you can see a demonstration of what a cockatoo can do (and keep that finger to yourself).
Weird experience: The worst error I've seen with any breed, other than obviously raising a dog to be a weapon, is to keep part of a litter as pals for the mother...the mother regresses and the pups don't keep their initial socialization. That's a pack in any breed and the last depressing example I watched involved a Lab and two Lab/Pit mixed puppies; the puppies came around but mama just got worse.
(That also touches on the obligatory and measured advice to NEUTER YOUR DAMN PETS!)
Unscientific observation: I've never met a veterinarian who had issues with any of the 'pit bull' breeds (I know there are others in FR who will dispute that), I have a friend who will not take pits into his grooming shop but who has a house full of other breeds that he can't take there either. I've had ONE pit bull snap at me (others would have but, as I said, never just assume a dog to be your pal) - she put one, single, hole in my Levis (not in me) to tell me to stay away from her puppies. Dalmatians are another story.
Confession: I've changed my mind about Chihuahuas after saving two this year, they're really pretty neat little guys.
Sign off: No, I won't get into a debate on this. Everybody gets their own opinion - but keep your hands and your prejudice off of my overweight, clown faced, Staffordshire...I'm off to see what FR thought of McCain on Letterman.
This week in my town four Rottweilers left alone with a young kid, they decided to turn on him for whatever reason. Critical condition in the hospital.
Or is the goal to ban dogs altogether?
Personally I don't like any of the above mentioned dogs with the exception of Malamutes and Cocker Spaniels, but I'm not going to call for their banning/destruction because of human mistreatment,lack of training, or lack of proper supervision. I fully agree that if an animal attacks and kills someone the owner of the animal should be punished and punished severely. But banning the breed(s) will not stop the attacks or deaths.
My dog is an Australian Cattle Dog. He is walked daily off leash (in violation of local laws); is well known throughout the neighborhood and by the police and enjoyed by everyone. Kids in the neighborhood run to greet him when we are out walking and the smallest ones ride him like a pony. He is trained and listens to me at all times. I am the alpha and he understands that the alpha must be obeyed. Another dog approaches and Boomer (his name) listens to me until I tell him differently. Boomer realizes I will protect him from the other dog. Now there is one catch to all this. A human (not a dog,cow,cat, or any other animal) tries to attack me and Boomer will defend his alpha immediately. He will attack unless I tell him to stay. So is this dog bad and dangerous? No he is not. He is doing what his instincts and operative training tell him to do. He has been trained and is supervised by a competent owner. But this training and trust is a daily exercise for both of us. When my brother walks him he has to be on a leash because he will not listen to my brother like he does me.
My good friend had a wolf hybrid that we would walk all the time. Never had a problem, but we were careful with the animal around others and never left him to make his own decision because we knew his instincts would take over. That dog was never a problem in the 12 years my friend owned him.
My point is (and several other posters tried to make the same point) that there is a level of personal responsibility that is being transferred from the people involved (victim and owner) to the animal. The dog only knows what is has been trained to do and its instincts. Dogs do not have the rational thinking capabilities that humans have.
The people who own these dogs that attack humans probably should not own dogs. My experience is these same people probably should not be allowed to reproduce either, but I don't hear you calling for forced sterilization for them.AWB
Seriously. Is it okay to keep chickens, goats, or rattlesnakes in your apartment if you clean up after them and don't let the rooster wake everybody up? Or could the city or county prohibit it?
That's about animal types or breeds. About risk: is it okay to keep explosives or dangerous chemicals in my apartment?
I'm struggling with this. Clearly the Feds have no business concerning themselves with pitbulls. But if there is a substantial indication that they are dangerous as a breed I think maybe local gov't has a right to be involved.
Look at the other side: I have a pit-bull, or a rattle-snake. I am not conspicuously excellent in my care and training, but not conspicuously negligent or worse. You live next door to me and you have a child. Since no amount of financial compensation from me and no duration of time I spend locked up can compensate you adequately for the loss of your child, and since you have no way of knowing my dog is safe, and since the breed (snake or pit-bull) is justly famous for a high proportion of serious injury and death incidents, you have to take precautions, cannot let your child play outside unless an armed adult is there, and so on. So can you complain that I am creating a nuisance? Or must you wait to lose your child before you can take any action legally?
Again, no problem as long as the owner of a collie does the same time when the collie bites someone.
Unfortunately, "commonsense" arrangements aren't being made, or we wouldn't have this discussion, right?
Pit bulls are dangerous. Any ban would remove the danger of attack.
Any "accountability" on the other hand is only applied after the fact.
There's all kinds of things, when not used with common sense get people injured or killed. Like firearms. If we just ban firearms then we remove the danger of somebody getting killed. Accountablility for a criminal shooting an innocent person is only applied after the fact.
Yes, there has never been a legal “right” for someone to keep an inherently dangerous animal, whether under the English common law or under American law that developed from the English law. The government has always had the right to ban animals that are dangerous to public health, safety and welfare.
Isn't that really the most interesting example!
If the guy next door owns 1 or 5 or 15 firearms, I don't worry about them climbing under or over the fence and killing my kid. He's got to be incredibly irresponsible or a bad actor before I'm going to get worried and before my kid is hurt.
I m struggling to suggest that mere ownership of one of the aggressive breeds (if that's okay to say) is a little more frightening to the parent next door than is ownership of firearms. Yeah a firearm, with a full magazine in it and a little skill behind it can kill lots of folks. The pitbull will maybe kill a dog and a child and then be killed or driven off.
So how to figure in the differences is an interesting problem.
Thank you. That’s the kind of observation that makes me wish I had a Blackstone .... An animal really is different from a firearm.
Absolutely not. That's why the parents belong in prison. They effectively killed their child the same as if they had let him play in traffic or handle a loaded gun. There are all kinds of hazards out there. Property owners have the responsibility to properly mark, enclose and warn others of them, but they don't have the responsibility of supervising their neighbors children. That same child could just as well have scaled a fence and drowned in a neighbors pool. Drowning deaths are far more common than fatal dog attacks, (more than 100 times as common).
The parents of the pit bulls? Just what have you been smoking?
Nope the parents of the toddler who somehow didn’t notice that he had scaled a 12’ fence with dogs behind it. Death by neglect.
The pit bulls killed the toddler, the toddler didn't kill the pit pulls.
Well gee, you just figured that one out?
You’ve been defending the pit bulls, not I.
All sorts of things are dangerous in this world and if you have something potentially dangerous, like a car, pool, dog or gun then you have the responsibility to use adequate safeguards to protect your neighbors, but if someone disregards or violates those safeguards it's not the property owners fault. A 12' high fence I think would meet nearly everyone's standards for what is adequate to contain a dog.
Now myself, I have serious doubts about the veracity of this story. Either something is being exaggerated or left out. First off, there are almost no 12' high fences in residential neighborhoods and they nearly always require a permit. Second, I think it would be next to impossible to find a jury who would convict someone who had the dogs contained in a 12' high enclosure. Third, even if they did convict it would almost certainly be for manslaughter rather than second degree murder.
I also have trouble seeing this as being an incident that would be confined to pit bulls. Anytime you enter the territory of multiple, large dogs with aggressive temperaments you are taking your life into your hands. I could easily see this same thing happening with chows or rottweilers.
And BTW, I do not own pit bulls. I never have and likely never will. They're just more liability than I wish to be responsible for, but the key word is responsibility. People who don't take responsibility for their animals, (or in this case their children), are the problem, not the animals.
Pit bulls killed the toddler.