I wouldn’t expect anyone to look into it further. And these people are not “investigative reporters”. For example in Louisville we had a report of a pit bull attack, moderately detailed. When pressed for facts afterwards, the “investigative reporter” admitted that he did not attend the scene, nor did he see the dog. Under pressure he admitted that he was told it was a pit bull by a person that didn’t see the dog, but claimed they were told so. I take all of these stories with a grain on salt.
I don’t know what we might learn. That’s my point. What I do know is that it is highly unlikely this is the whole story, based on the people who write it.
Yes, the dog could have gone off like that, I imagine it can happen. I simply wouldn’t put my money on it being as spontaneous as described here.
This isn’t about dogs, pit bulls or otherwise. It’s about taking something at face value because it fits what you believe. Watch an hour of CBS every night for a week. Then, outside of dog attacks and a Girl Scout cookie story, tell me what you take at face value.
I’m done.
Who knows, it might just be a simple story of a pit bull attacking it’s owners while they were in the car and then continuing the attack after the owner/driver left the car.