Posted on 01/31/2006 3:32:23 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
NBC10.com 3-Year-Old Critical After Being Mauled By Pit Bull
POSTED: 3:14 pm EST January 30, 2006 UPDATED: 9:07 am EST January 31, 2006
NEW CASTLE, Del. -- A 3-year-old girl remains in critical condition at Christiana Hospital.
Police said the incident happened on Oakmont Avenue at 10:30 a.m. in New Castle.
Police and paramedics responded after they received the report of a child who was attacked by a pit bull. When they arrived, they found Destiny Campbell suffering from massive head and shoulder injuries.
Police said the victim and her mother had driven to a home to pick up the child's grandmother. While inside the home, a dog, named Diamond, attacked the child. Police said that the attack was unprovoked.
A group of area residents responded to the calls for help from relatives and began beating the dog with sticks and broom handles.
The SPCA later responded to the scene and caught the dog, which had fled from the residents.
Witnesses said that the dog was generally peaceful and calmed down immediately after the attack.
"After this happened, the dog appeared to be polite. The tail was wagging. Even when the SPCA arrived and had to corral the dog with the lasso, the dog was still listening," said Trinidad Navarro, of the New Castle County Police Department.
The pit bull belonged to a family member, Turquoise Robinson. Police took her into custody on unrelated charges.
As she was being taken into custody on Monday afternoon, Robinson saw NBC 10 reporter Tim Furlong near a police car waiting to take her away.
"Why are they taking you away?" asked Furlong, as Robinson walked by.
Robinson then spit on the reporter as a cameraman taped the incident, and she responded, "that's why."
Police then charged Robinson with spitting on Furlong.
Robinson has not been charged in connection with the pit bull attack.
I think it is built into the breed. They attack on reflex. Sort of like the tiger that suddenly turned on --was it Roy?
Yep. They're obedience-trained.
Has anyone done a statistical comparison of Pit Bull attacks vs other breeds? That would be very revealing, I'm guessing.
The fact is, particular breeds have particular temperaments. Pit bulls are bred to be tough, aggressive, violent dogs. I think those that aren't are the exception.
Detroit Free Press Jan.31/06~snip~
“I’m definitely more in favor of this direction,” said Dr. Angela Hines, a veterinarian who heads the city’s Animal Control division. Hines said a specific pit bull ban was not only nearly impossible for the city to enforce, it also would have been ineffective because it did not address the problem of other dangerous dogs.
Watson said she introduced the ordinance because she was trying to find ways to respond to citizens who complained repeatedly of dangerous dogs on the loose, particularly pit bulls, who attacked people and terrorized neighborhoods.
“Something ought to be done,” she said.
But she said the task force would be the best way for citizens who are concerned about the issue to air their views and look for ways to enforce the city’s current dog laws.
"The media sensationalizes Pit Bull attacks and ignores the story when another type of dog is involved in a vicious attack."
I'm in court all the time and I see several dog bite cases come through where people are really hurt. Our city attorney says about ninety percent of those cases involve pit bulls. I don't know if that is exactly right, but I know from what I have seen that it has to be pretty close. Pit bulls are just dangerous animals. No doubt some are great dogs, but I sure as heck wouldn't own one and I'd rather there were none in my neighborhood.
Is that your dog in the picture? It's adoreable, I have a tawny pit with a white chest and toes, she's the best dog I've ever had.
You are such a pathetic apologist.
You have managed to invoke virtually every cliche that comes up in these threads--all in one post!
"I own a Pit Bull and he is a very nice well-behaves dog. I realize that there are instances were the breed has attacked people, but that should not be used to condemn the entire breed. It is usually the result ofpoor training and irresponsible ownership. Any type of dof can attack a child. Large dog breeds do the most damage. The media sensationalizes Pit Bull attacks and ignores the story when another type of dog is involved in a vicious attack. The media also reports Pit Bull attacks when it is actually other breeds. This happened in San Francisco when the woman was mauled to death by another breed of dog. This is bs media sensationlism. How many kids were harmed from violence, drugs, and other real problems today."
Statistically, pit bulls ARE the most dangerous dog in the country. In what state do you and your cuddly child-mauler live--Denial?
While you, Sir, are merely pathetic.
Aw, another member of the pit bull apologist brigade.
So, enlighten us, Kanawa: Present one fact that refutes the FACT that pit bulls are statistically the most dangerous dog in America.
Yet all this info is ivory tower stuff when you're minding your own business walking down a public street and TWO dogs, one Rottweiler and one pit bull, are there and the Rottie is growling at you and you know that you are completely at their mercy, of which they have none.
I walk a lot, have walked a lot for more than 40 years -- ever since I was a little kid. An old, old rickety German Sheperd bit me once in the street, poor old fella felt he was doing his job and I didn't really fear him. I seriously doubt he would have KILLED me in a crazy rage even in his prime because I've never known or heard of a GS to behave that way; they protect, they don't murder, and owners can call them off. The only other time I felt threatened by a loose dog on a public street was by a mid-sized white fluffy dog, but again, that dog would have been hard-pressed to kill me; even two of them wouldn't have pulled it off.
But the Rottweiler and the pit, either one of them alone, could have made me very dead but quick. With two of them, I would have been hamburger in less time than it takes to make microwave popcorn. In all my years of walking, all those miles in a lot of different neighborhood and wilderness, the ONLY TWO DOGS that made me literally fear for my life were a Rottweiler and pit bull. AND I knew it was only a matter of time -- two weeks, it turns out -- before in my sporadic browsing of Free Republic that I'd be able to tell my story on yet another thread about some human being being seriously mauled or killed by a pit bull or a Rottweiler. I can't remember EVER seeing a thread here on FR about someone being seriously mauled or killed by a German Sheperd or any other kind of dog other than a Rot or a Pit.
I admire and understand your devotion to your dogs, and I really don't like the "solution" of yet another law or regulation. Like I said, I don't even like leash laws. But pits and Rottweilers are proven unpredictable killers, and I was almost one of their victims. Again, all your information is Ivory Tower stuff in the real world where I live.
Muleteam1
I never apologize for any dog, of any breed, "pit bull" or otherwise, that bites
and you are a damn fool for suggesting it.
And you're no gentleman for attacking the poster above for being an "apologist"
Present one fact that refutes the FACT that pit bulls are statistically the most dangerous dog in America
Here's a fact for you grasshopper, from the CDC study...
Conclusions—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 Assoc2000;217:836–840)
And if you care to put aside your preconceptions for a moment and look at Table 1 in the above link you'll find that in the later years of the study, 93-98, "pit bull" type dogs did not account for the greatest number of fatalities.
I take all bites seriously and fatal attacks with even greater concern.
Here's a few more facts for you...
All dogs are potentially dangerous.
Larger dogs are potentially more dangerous.
Large dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners are potentially the most dangerous of all.
Now you can jump on the 'ban' wagon and eliminate "pit bulls" and figure you have done your nanny duty,
But there will still be at least 24 other breeds out there that have been involved in fatal attacks.
Any fatal attack is unacceptable, right?, so we must destroy those breeds as well.
In fact to completely eliminate all disfiguring bites, which are tragic and unacceptable, we should ban all dogs because even small dogs are capable of causing great injury.
And when we're done with dogs we can focus on those pesky handguns 'cause let's face it no one really needs them and lots of children die through their use. < /lib >
I prefer a comprehensive approach that educates people of their responsibilities with regard to dog ownership
and targets irresponsible owners of any breed with severe consequences for their behavior.
My approach emphasizes personal responsibility, a conservative value.
BTW--I do not really believe that the breed is beyond redemption. Aggression was bred out of bulldogs (the specific breed, that is) in a few short decades, after bull-baiting was banned in merrie olde England.
I'm with you on this.
You delusional types are actually more danger to society than runamok pit bulls, because of the way you manipulate information, for the purposes of disinforming people--all to feed your agenda, which is to convince us (and yourself, no doubt), that pits are just sweet little creatures.
You cite a study, BUT DON'T MENTION THE KEY FINDINGS! Let me quote the study that YOU dug up when I asked for FACTS:
"During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF [dog bite-related fatalities] during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of those deaths."
You say I am no gentleman for calling someone a member of the pit bull apologist brigade (of which, it's now clear, you are the commander). Sorry, when people knowingly tell outright lies in order to decieve people, I am unable to be a gentleman. You are an intellectually dishonest poltroon...uh, but just in my opinion, of course.
You didn't mention the ONE death in the study caused by a labrador retriever attacking a person. Isn't that the crux of your argument? That pit bulls don't cause ALL dog-related deaths?
My argument (and that of every other person on this and past pit bull threads here on FR in which we come up against liars) is: MOST deaths, and MOST serious maulings and maimings from dogs...come from pit bulls.
Time you admitted it. Just say, Hey, I own a pit bull and I don't care what the truth is about them.
That, we can respect.
"So, a summary of your post would be that it isn't the dog's fault ("Almost all dogs involved in fatal attacks were the direct result of the dogs training")and pit bull owners shouldn't be blamed (" All the people who attacked the character of all pit bull owners are ignorant.") ?"
I think you may have totally he point. Please read the post.The owners are to blame in all dog attacks regardless of breed. And yes, people who throw everyone who owns a pit bull into one broad group are ignorant. Ignorant means lacking in knowledge. If all pit bulls were ferocious millions of people would be killed by the dogs ever years and the media wouldn't have to sensationalize the 5-10 attacks that actually do happen and turn them all into national news stories. I don't see it in the national news when someone gets murdered in Delawere's federally subsidized ghettos every night. And my point was also that people who believe what they hear on the news are naive. People are stupid and they actually believe the media and criminal owners when they say it was a "family pet" that just "snapped". The fact is the people who live in these neighborhoods are the real animals and they abuse dogs to make them ferocious. Look how their children turn out. If you left your children to be raised by these people they would turn into a killer also. Post a story about attacks when it happens in an area were people actually live like human beings. The fact is pit bulls are common among middle-class, upper-middle class, and wealthy people. I know many people who work admirable jobs who own them. You never hear about these people because their dogs aren't trained attack dogs and they don't kill people.
"You delusional nanny-statists types are actually more danger to society than runamok pit bulls, because of the way you manipulate information, for the purposes of disinforming people--all to feed your agenda, which is to convince us (and yourself, no doubt), that all pits are just the spawn of Satan and that you hold some illusional higher moral ground."
You claim I am I liar, prove it or prove yourself one as you have already proved yourself a fool.
You asked me, "Present one fact that refutes the FACT that pit bulls are statistically the most dangerous dog in America" and I showed that in the last years of the study 93-98 that this was not the case.
What conclusion can be drawn from the study? Yes that "pit bulls" account for a significant percentage of all fatalities but also that the percentage varies over time.
Is it the case in in 2005? I don't know, but with the increase of low-life gangsta/drug dealing culture and its adherents misuse of the breed and the general increase in popularity of the breed it would not surprise me if they were on the top of list.
I'm old enough to remember when "pit bulls" were not even on the radar, when GS and Dobes were the "bad" dogs.
In fact if you look to the Lab case it comes from a study from 1975-80 where stats showed...
"the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15)."
I do not hide the facts but rather look at them and seek to find ways to solve the problem without resorting to hyperbole and putting all owners of a particular breed or their dogs into one socialist-sized box.
The crux of my argument if you need to hear it again is that ALL dog related fatalities and maulings are serious and a comprehensive response must be found that takes into account ALL dog related fatalities and maulings.
The proper conservative way to deal with it is by demanding personal responsibility and accountablity.
You got a problem with that?
"I do not hide the facts but rather look at them and seek to find ways to solve the problem without resorting to hyperbole and putting all owners of a particular breed or their dogs into one socialist-sized box."
What a pompous twit. "Resorting," "hyperbole"? Dude, junior high is over. Socialist-sized box? My God, give me twenty minutes to recover, laughing so damned hard here....
Grow up. You champion a breed of dog that is unpredictable and brings grievous bodily harm to many people, especially children, and too often death...and you want to "debate" it?
In-effing-credible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.