Army Vet Says Police Raided Wrong Apartment, Killed His Dog

WKBW.com ^ | June 4, 2013 | Allen Leight

[kanawa]

Properly contained dogs don't kill other dogs who are on their own property.

Exactly

[Alaska Wolf]

So what kind of punishment do you believe is appropriate for the owner of the killer dogs?

[kanawa]

Clifton

There are other reputable sources.
Clifton is a major league animal rights kook.

"Around the world, societies that practice animal husbandry are desensitized societies. The abuse of animals inevitably spills over into the treatment of women and children. Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and slavery persist in ... as extensions of common agricultural practice to those of our own species who are least able to protect themselves."
Link

There are many critques of Clifton's "study" and methodology available.
KC DOG BLOG is good start. Google will reveal others.

For good investigation and analysis look to the CDC which is up front about its methodological weaknesses.

Its conclusion for example...

"Although 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 dog’s 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. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)"

(What they are touching on here is the numerator/denominator problem. For accurate study and conclusions both the numerator[the # of dogs of a specific breed involved in attacks] and the denominator [the total population of the specific breed] must be known.)

Karen Delise also does an honest job beginning with her book Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics

and followed by The Pit Bull Placebo which she has made available online.

Her organization, The National Canine Research Council strives for accurate information, for example, their 2009 study of dog bite-related fatalities....

"NCRC is the only organization that does not rely on media sources for information on dog bite-related fatalities.

There were 31 dog bite-­related fatalities in 2009. NCRC contacted officials on each case in order to obtain the most accurate and comprehensive information available. We have re-­interviewed sources that the media has reached, and located others that they have not, among whom may be police investigators, animal control officers, coroners, veterinarians, health department officials, dog owners, and eye witnesses. We have obtained incident reports, bite reports, human and animal autopsy reports, summaries of judicial proceedings, and crime scene data and photographs.

Official reports often do not agree with news accounts and/or contain important information that was either unavailable or not of interest to reporters. The NCRC 2009 final report on dog bite-related fatalities is released at the end of 2010 because we believe that our mission of preserving the human-­canine bond obligates us to be as accurate about these emotionally charged incidents as we can, so that they are calmly, correctly and, therefore, usefully understood.

Accuracy takes time, work and research."

Investigative Reports on Dog Bite-Related Fatalities for 2009

[kanawa]

I'm not a legal expert but if human deaths are involved
and unless it was premeditated on the part of the owner
then I would think manslaughter would be appropriate.

For human injuries...something like gross negligence causing bodily harm.

Penalties could mirror those resulting from, say, drunk driving.

For attacks involving other animals, first offense...
loss of your dogs and right to own dogs for a specific time
and reinstated only on condition of a RDO course completion
and inspection by Animal Control assuring containment for your dog(s).

Substantial fine including civil penalty made to the owners of the dog killed. ($2000-$5000 range?)

[Alaska Wolf]

Karen Delise

I don't believe her to be reputable. She is a self appointed expert.

Dog Bite Law Blog

Karen Delise is a living, walking, talking non-sequitur. Hardly worth rebutting were it not that she pretends to an unearned status. For those out there with a bit of analytic capability and/or scientific training:

1) Delise consistently switches from apples to oranges, as fits her propaganda goals. First she says ‘all dogs bite’ and pretends that dog bites are the same as sustained attacks. You know, Serpell’s point that dachhunds bite too and this is just as bad as a PB attack. But later Delise objects to statistics on dog bites because published statistics don’t separate out bites vs. sustained attacks and fatalities. Gad, she even makes this switch in a single comment here (March 1, 2010). Can you get more confused in your reasoning, or more transparent about your personal agenda?

2) Delise is herself partly responsible for the failure to separate statistics on mere bites vs. maiming/killing attacks. No wonder, since her entire book about slippers and balloons depended on keeping the distinction vague.

3) The book Delise gained fame with was a non-sequitur to begin with, though the PB-fans did latch onto it. All the things she cites in that book as causing accidents — slippers, balloons and such — do exactly that: cause accidents unrelated to the goal they were designed for. None of the things Delise mentions in her book were specifically designed to kill, as PBs are. Delise would have been more scientifically legitimate if she’d compared PB-inflicted deaths with deaths inflicted by firearms. You know, at least take two things that were designed to kill and compare those.

4) Another thing Delise omits in her book is the fact that a thing as simple as a household ladder comes with an extensive label warning of the risks and what precautions to take to minimize those risks. It’d be a crime to falsify such label, stating that you can put a ladder on the most unstable of surfaces and then stand on the top rung. Yet this is exactly what Delise is doing re the PB. She not only omits to mention the risks, but actively denies them. It would be nice if at some point she were held as liable for this as the maker of a ladder with a lying label would be.

5) That Delise works at a place called the National Council of Canine Research sounds impressive, until you go look and see that this is an organization that she founded herself. In the usual line of manipulative deception the PB fans use, Delise has chosen a name for her organization that SUGGESTS it’s a government run research center, thus an objective institution. It’s not. It’s just the umpteenth propaganda and lobby club that has chosen to hide behind a deceptive name.

6) Delise isn’t only the founder of this phony National Council of Canine Research, she’s also (according to the web site) director. This makes me wonder what kind of salary she’s awarding herself for her propaganda efforts. Nowhere, no matter how I search, do I find a resume that would show Delise has any kind of scientific background or what education she does have. She’s on Scientology lists, food for thought, since this ain’t the same as science — and aside from that everything refers back to her propaganda organization with the deceptive name.

6) So I suppose we’re all supposed to be impressed and drawn into debate by Delis’s self-bestowed title as ‘director’ of something.

This is just a heads up to those who might waste their time trying to engage in serious discussion with her here. Like trying to discuss economics with bankers who are still awarding themselves huge bonuses for causing the present crisis. You’ll only get opportunistic, distorted, self-interested arguments back.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/massena-ny/TELNN99U45Q7CFQRI

NATIONAL CANINE RESEASRCH COUNCIL IS JUST ANOTHER LYING PITNUTTER SITE FOUNDED AND RUN BY OUTRIGHT LYING PITNUTTERS WHICH I HAVE PROVED POSITIVELY BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT WITH THE ABOVE POSTS THEY THINK THEY CAN SAY WHAT EVER THEY WANT AND NOT BACK ANY OF IT UP WITH DOCUMENTED VERIFIABLE FACTS - HELLO GOOGLE - AND THEY HOPE NOBODY WILL ACTUAL RESEARCH ANYTHING THEY SAY THESE TWO LYING PITNUTTERS ARE THE ONES MAKING UP THE LIES AND MYTHS THAT ALL YOU PITNUTTERS ON HERE SPEW ALL THE TIME I HAVE ALWAYS TOLD YOU PITNUTTERS TO DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEW A BUNCH OF BS AND AGAIN YOU FAILED TO RESEARCH THE NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH COUNCIL AND NOW YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN PROVED YOURSELF TO BE LYING IGNORANT FOOLS AND DON'T BE MAD AT ME FOR PROVING YOU TO BE LYING AND IGNORANT ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS DO A LITTLE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS BS

Are you a pitnutter?

[Alaska Wolf]

What kind of prison sentences for the owner of a dog that causes grave bodily injuries or death?

[Altariel]

To use an analogy, he returned to The Shire after fighting in Mordor to find the orcs were on the rampage.

[kanawa]

Ah yes, Kenneth Phillips, a lawyer. I have had private correspondence with him.
Seemed rather sleazy to me. His suggestions are a back door approach to BSL.
Somewhat akin to the attempts of anti-gun folks to regulate gun ownership out of existence.

The author of post you shared is apparently Alexandra Semyonova.
Who likes to share her “new and accurate model of what the dog is all about”.

It includes...

“Dogs are not wolves.
You do not need to keep your dog “subordinate.”
Dogs build on trust, not on dominance.
The first, most basic dog rule is “no real aggression.” Humans need to learn this.”

Apparently her interpretation of dog behavior
has run aground against Delise’s meticulous collecting of data.

I really see no cause for her snarky aspersions to be cast at Delise
unless it is the attempt by someone no one takes seriously
to aggrandize herself.

[Alaska Wolf]

I really see no cause for her snarky aspersions to be cast at Delise

I don't see any cause to take her any less seriously than a self appointed "expert" with a clear agenda.

Is BSL what this is all about to you? If so, why not make the penalty for the owners of a dog that inflicts grave injury or death to an innocent person a minimum of 10 years in prison?

Somewhat akin to the attempts of anti-gun folks to regulate gun ownership

Unlike dogs, guns are inanimate objects.

[kanawa]

Are you a pitnutter?

No...but I think I'd rather be a pitnutter than whatever that fellow is who posted the all caps rant.

He seems more than a little off the deep end.

[kanawa]

“I don’t see any cause to take her any less seriously than a self appointed “expert” with a clear agenda.”

Did you go to the link above...

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2009%20Final%20Report%20DBRF.pdf

Look at what she is doing.
She is investigating, collecting data, analysizing the data, extract salient points.
She is doing actual Science.
She is discovering information that can be applied to reducing all dog attacks.

[kanawa]

Is BSL what this is all about to you?

No, it is about putting conservative principles into action.

Unlike dogs, guns are inanimate objects.

My FRiend, everyone knows that guns are not dogs.
What is akin here is the approach and the attitude of those who seek
to take away the rights of the individual in the name of the common good,
be they gun banners or dog banners.

[Alaska Wolf]

Did you go to the link above...

Yes and I've done research on the NCRC that she created. I can't seem to find any financial statements. Can you help me out?

Owners maintain the dogs we call resident dogs exclusively outside of regular human interaction:onachain,inakennel,inanisolatedportionofthehomesuchasabasement orgarage,orintheyard.Someownersacquirethedogsfornegativepurposes,suchas guarding,int imidation,protection,fighting,ornegligentbreeding

Othersignificantfactors : CriminalCharges: No

Those "dogs" aren't usually golden retrievers, springer spaniels, Newfies, poodles, Irish setters or border collies, are they? Why not?

[Alaska Wolf]

to take away the rights of the individual in the name of the common good,

So it is about BSL.

Why not make the penalty for the owners of a dog that inflicts grave injury or death to an innocent person a minimum of 10 years in prison?

[kanawa]

Why not make the penalty for the owners of a dog that inflicts grave injury or death to an innocent person a minimum of 10 years in prison?

Why not make it the same as the penalty for drunk driving causing grave injury or death?

[Alaska Wolf]

She is doing actual Science.

Isn't the fact that the dogs identified as pit bulls/crosses in the attacks, but breed ruled indeterminate by one expert just a little unscientific and questionable?

[Alaska Wolf]

Why not make it the same as the penalty for drunk driving causing grave injury or death?

So 10 years minimum for either would be fine with you?

[kanawa]

So it is about BSL.

As I said, it goes deeper than that.

[Alaska Wolf]

As I said, it goes deeper than that.

You have yet to provide a detailed explanation.

[kanawa]

So 10 years minimum for either would be fine with you?

I don't know.
Sometimes giving some leeway to the courts in sentencing is appropriate.
Are you aware of any jurisdictions that mete out 10 years minimum for involuntary manslaughter?