Posted on 07/28/2006 5:09:06 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
71-Year-Old Mauled To Death While Gardening
Neighbor's Dog Jumps Fence
POSTED: 7:10 am EDT July 28, 2006
UPDATED: 7:28 am EDT July 28, 2006
KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- A 71-year-old woman died Thursday when she was attacked by a pit bull in Kansas City, Kan., officials said.
Jimmie May McConnell was in her garden about 11:30 a.m. when the dog jumped the fence and attacked her.
Firefighters had to hit the dog with an ax and a pole to get it off McConnell, officials said.
"The dog was still on the victim," Assistant Fire Chief Craig Duke said.
McConnell was taken to the University of Kansas Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead.
Neighbors said McConnell was so badly injured they could hardly recognize her when she was pulled from the garden.
Residents said the dog belonged to a neighbor.
Animal control officers tranquilized the pit bull and took the animal into custody. A second pit bull at the house was tranquilized and removed Thursday afternoon, KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Mo., reported.
"It gets out once in a while and runs around. I was out here once, and it came up and I petted it," neighbor Preston Williams said.
"I think they need to get rid of all of them dogs. Don't need them killing human beings," said the Rev. John Boykin, a neighbor of McConnell's.
"I'm in shock, and I'm angry," said Gayle McConnell, the victim's niece. "It's been said that pit bulls can be dangerous, but people seem to believe it can't happen to them. It certainly can. I just wish people would heed the warning and do what they need to do."
Friends of McConnell said she was well-liked in the neighborhood and had lived in the area a long time.
"She was a nice lady," Williams said.
Gayle McConnell said her aunt was a great cook and an awesome singer, and her death is an enormous loss to the family.
McConnell leaves behind six children. McConnell was a school crossing guard and was a foster parent for several years.
Pit bulls are banned in Wyandotte County, Kan., where the attack took place.
Police said they have not been able to contact the dog's owner. Officials said they are investigating the case as a homicide.
Several recent pit bull attacks in nearby Independence, Mo., have injured three men. A pit bull was also recently shot to death in Independence when it charged a police officer.
Toddler Dies After Dog Attack In Texas
A toddler in South Texas has died after being mauled by at least one of the family's pit bulls.
The Hidalgo County, Texas, sheriff's department identified the victim as 3-year-old Mariah Puga, of Hargill, Texas.
Investigators said as many as three dogs may have been involved in Monday night's attack, when the child was in the yard.
Puga died early Tuesday at a hospital.
Officials said the two pit bulls and a rottweiler were quarantined.
Authorities also said one of the pit bulls had her puppies with her in the yard.
Woman Serious After Dog Attack
A 26-year-old Davidson County, N.C., woman is in serious condition after she was attacked by two pit bull dogs.
Police in Lexington said they found Kelly Lynn Bell lying in a ditch Thursday with several severe dog bites on her body. She was taken to a hospital for surgery.
Authorities are holding the dogs while they investigate the incident, and no charges have been filed yet.
I may be inclined to agree with some of the negative remarks here about pit bulls, but thank God we do not yet live in a country where we must present our rulers with a "good reason" for everything we do.
You still seem to deny the genetics of it. If pits didn't have something to them that was aggressive, or didn't show the natural aggression after some of their breeding, they would not be the type of choice of druggies. It's not just their physique and "staying" (aka, tenacity) power, it's the fact they can easily bring out aggression.
Genetics is huge. Only in this hippied-raised-by-Dr.Spock where it's no1's fault do we deny this consistently, and blame instead the environment. Seems every nasty dog in a pound (unPC for shelter) is excused as surely having come from an abusive place. Which is total nonsense and often, libel/slander against those who brought the dog in.
The good news is the dogs could be bred back to a point where they are more manageable. Naturally aggressive/sensitive dogs would be avoided, and dogs more stable and less aggressive would be the breeding choices. The very fact these strains/lines of different types exist is proof genetics plays a part - and can be used to advantage.
Agreed.
Are you stating that you shouldn't be liable for damage that your dog does? If so,I don't agree with you. At the very least you should be financially liable for all damages. Now if you have a "non-agressive" breed (whatever that is) and it bites the neighbors bratty kid - I agree that you shouldn't go to jail for that. That isn't what I intended in my original statement, and if you took it that way I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. You still should bear full financial liability including possible punitive damages, but I didn't mean jail time for something like that. I believe I used the term substantive injury - like if your dog rips off half of someones face.
Somewhat liable? Yes. Expecting jail ipso facto for EVERY person who has a dog attack someone? No. Maybe, depending on the details. Maybe. But NOT ipso facto. It is UNFAIR. It is wrong.
I'm talking about jail time for the bozos who let their dogs run loose and attack people or those who put large dogs behind a 4 ft fence and then when they get out and attack someone express such surprise that their darling warling little puppy wuppy half kills someones kid. In cases like this simple financial liability isn't enough, and if more of the owners of dogs that cause so much disfigurement actually went to the greybar hotel, then maybe they'd be a little less hot to get the most agressive animal they could because it's so "cool"
Case in point. A couple of years ago in an apartment complex near me a woman was attacked by two pit bulls that the owner (visiting a "friend" in the complex) left in the bed of his pickup. 500+ stiches and extensive reconstructive surgery to repair the avulsions on her face. The owner took off and was eventually located, but was too poor to even keep current on his truck payments. (Funny, he wasn't too poor to afford several dogs) As far as I'm concerned he should have spent a couple of years behind bars for that crap. He didn't control his dogs (and btw they were pit bulls) and took off. When he was tracked down denied all responsibility and couldn't have paid anyway.
I never said no responsibility. I just don't like the blanket statements these threads generate that are, to wit: "Every person whose dog causes harm should go to jail". Read it carefully. It is a wide-open statement with universally punitive consequences.
You gave examples. I gave examples. If your dog goes nuts exactly because he had a brain tumor that started hitting his critical character/personality centers, all bets are off. Such a case would be totally unfair to make a person go to jail and potentially ruin his life.
If anything, such real punishment should be meted out on a case-by-case basis, judging the whole circumstances. Common sense; judgement, you know. Like they used to use in the old days instead of absolutist laws.
Well how about the blanket statement that you are always 100% financially liable for any damages your dog does, and that in cases where the dog was not properly restrained jail time is appropriate?
Another couple of examples: just this week a two year old girl was severely mauled (pictures on the news would make you sick if you weren't a surgeon) by the unrestrained pit bull of the neighbor of friends that the family was visiting. She just got out of the car and the dog came running out of the yard and attacked her. She's still in the intensive care unit. I think the a$$hole that owned the dog should have to pay the total bill even if he loses his house, and then get jail time too.
As a parent myself if this had happened to my kid I'd be tempted to mete out a bit of punishment on my own.
Another case last year some woman's pit bull attacked a neighbor's child. He ran in the house and got his gun to shoot the dog to get it off the child, and the woman attacked him screaming "don't hurt my dog" (I think he shot her and the dog) There were several witnesses. In my opinion, the woman should be completely liable financially and get jail time too since she tried to keep him from saving his child. She didn't care about the child, only her damn dog.
I don't mind being financially liable at all. I'd expect that as a moral issue. Although as with any possible issue, I don't like jacked-up lawsuits well past the real costs, which can happen with these things in the non-loser-pays court system.
But you again are assuming the person could completely ensure the dog doesn't sneak out at some inopportune time, or incredibly get under a fence it never cared about before. Hence, if you're going to jail, the prosecution better prove you were TRULY negligent in controlling a living, moving, self-thinking being.
I've said it a million times - they are NOT in the real world inanimate objects that truly could be under total control. The best dog in the world (which I had) is never to be assumed by anyone - owner or otherwise - to ever be incapable of doing something all on its own coupled with "bad luck" circumstances.
And again, you don't automatically put people in jail who lost control of their INANIMATE car and killed someone. They'd have to be proven truly negligent in driving.
I think we're pretty close to agreement. The two examples I cited were where I think the owner should have gone to jail (trouble with the "eye-witness" news is that you almost never find out how the story ends.) I think the guy that shot the dog owner wasn't charged - apparently her injuries weren't severe anyway, but I don't know who ended up paying for his kid's hospital bill), And I agree that if the owner takes reasonable steps to ensure that the dog doesn't escape, and it escapes anyway, then there is no reason for criminal charges. Now if the thing repeatedly gets out, that is another story.
And again, you don't automatically put people in jail who lost control of their INANIMATE car and killed someone
No but they almost always go to trial - I can't think of a single instance where someone killed a person with a vehicle and wasn't at least charged with at a minimum involuntary manslaughter.
Yes, people who truly act like dopes with their animals should get scrutiny, and if they had such an attack, should be in court and possibly "physically" punished. I hate people who let their dogs run around off lead, at least in neighborhoods and the like. So much can happen, and what makes them think their Lab (yes, it's always Labs) isn't going to do something stupid, like make someone swerve to avoid hitting him? (I'm not crazy about loose dogs anywhere - in parks, they can bother my dog while walking, no matter their intentions.)
I think neighbor testimony would be good for things like this (although dangerous if you have neighbor-vendettas). They could testify as to how the person handles the dog typically, how they treat them, etc (personally, I think people who ply dogs with treats and sweetness should be just as subject to the bars for attacks as those who neglect and beat them - being a coddler with a dog does not do anything to control the dog's expanding ego! ;-) ). It really depends on the situation. Only problem with that tac is, again, the slow court system.
Getting out of my Jimmy, I'm confronted by a pit bull with his head out of the neighboring S-10's window, trying to get at my face. MERCY. That brought the reality of these dogs home to me BIG TIME!
For all you pit bull fanciers out there, I hope someday you get a front row seat to some other owner's pit bull the same as I just did. It's an eye opener.
I did a copy/paste of what I'd written because I wanted to check something out before posting. What I failed to copy was the first part of my post which stated I'd stopped at Wal-Mart this afternoon to pick up meds for an ear infection I have. What I posted goes on from there. Sorry!
Cute dog. I loved my Beauregard!
My friends called him Beauregard the Wonder Dog because I was single when I owned him and literally spent hours every day training him.
One time I put his food down in front of him, and left him to practice "not eating till instructed".
My wife asked me a question, I got distracted, and soon we got in the car and drove away before I realized I had not given him the go. I turned around and went home to find him drooling all over the ground... but not touching the food.
He would jump off rocks into the water (15'), chase balls, he did that back-flip-flying-through-the-air frisbee catch..would never wait for it, but always tried to get it at the peak of his reach..
and the best thing was watching him strolling along a berm adjacent to a rice field. He had a big white tail and it would be waving like a flag. Suddenly, the flag would go side-to-side and he would head into the rice, go into a point and lock. I would yell "Bird!" which was his command to flush and he would jump and then stick his head up and watch for the bird to fall.
I didn't even really care to hunt that much, but loved to watch him work the fields.
Good memories.
I hope you don't take too much offense at this
but whenever I hear someone refer to dogs as 'evil',
I consider they have gone off the deep end.
No offense taken. Yes, I go off the deep end BIG TIME when my daughter's
life is threatened. I hope you and yours never have to suffer through what she went through, and myself as her father had to go through knowing it was a near miss from a vicious animal. I do have a friend that has a Pit that is very
sweet, but I was always a little leary around her. When it's not just a story you read on the Internet about a mauling or a killing and it's your precious baby girl it changes your perspective in a big way.
"I've never heard a "Pit Bull Saves Child from Drowning" story, or a "Pit Bull Proves to be Life of the Party" story. "
Pit bulls are rarely in the news for good things because that doesn't sell. Look up bear and pit bull on this very site right now and see for yourself.
"Day after day after day we read these stories of killings "
That is because that's all you do. You don't bother to read statistics that prove you wrong, or work with dogs every day, or read articles by veterinarians, trainers, animal behaviorists, and biologists that totally disprove your OPINIONS.
"NOT follow their natural instincts, which is to kill other dogs and graduate up to human beings."
This is totally unfounded and can be easily disproven. Animal aggression is completely different than human aggression. Ask anyone that owns a hunting breed. The only animal that graduates from killing pets to people is US.
"It's only an example of media bias if there are thousands and thousands of labrador retriever maulings the press isn't telling us about . . . "
There are an estimated four million dog attacks every year, which is 300,000 a month, and almost all involving pit bulls are published in every paper that finds out about them. Which means that there are a large number of them that aren't published because, and this is from an acutal reporter's mouth, "if it isn't a pit bull, it isn't worth reporting".
Many cities will publish their own dog bite statistics. Some of them rank pit bulls as number one in dog bites, while others rank labs, dalmations, or GSD.
"Many many Pit Bull haters are people who have been involved or know someone who has had an incident with these evil creatures."
Exactly. So one personal experience combined with shoddy media reports are enough for most ignorant folks out there to make an "informed" opinion, despite the droves of experts that disagree with them.
Understood.
When I had my experience last week, for a short while after,
it wouldn't have bother me in the least if 99.9% of the bears in the world
would have been shot and the remaining 0.1% put behind bars in a zoo.
I read your report and I see..."a Pit Bull came out of nowhere".
Vitrually all these attacks could have been prevented
if the dog had been owned by a responsible owner.
Owners of larger dogs have a heighten responsibilty to insure their dogs are contained and not running loose.
I hear some saying that owners of these dogs are all either trailer trash, gangsters or have small penises
and probably that it true in some cases or areas.
Personally none of the owners I know fit that description.
The people I know love their dogs very much
and know that being blessed by their dogs comes with a price.
They have taken the time to research their breed
and what it means to be a responsible owner.
They apply that knowledge and keep their dogs safe and out of trouble.
Unfortunately there are irresponsible people in the world.
For the 'common good' there is a natural reaction to want to remove
the perceived source of danger from the world,
whether it be dogs, guns, alcohol, teenage drivers, twinkies etc.
This approach comes with a price though.
We become a society that devalues personal responsibilty and accountability.
A society that doesn't trust the indivdual to make good decisions and to be responsible.
That relies on government deciding for us,
usually by imposed bans, that target the good as well as the bad.
On the contrary, I read all kinds of sources, and every veterinarian I talk to says pits are unpredictable dogs.
Let me ask you a question: with all the hundreds of breeds available, why do you think some people choose a dog that can kill with one snap of its jaws?
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.