Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

3 Year Old Attacked by Pit Bull
WYTV ^

Posted on 04/01/2009 10:34:18 AM PDT by Chet 99

A Warren toddler is recovering after being attacked by a pit bull over the weekend.

Three year old Christine Francis required 19 stitches after the animal bit her face. The dog got inside her home on Saturday after her father trapped it on the front porch, hoping animal control officers would come and pick it up. However, due to budget constraints, no one was available.

The girl's father, Thomas Holmes, says he understands the city's financial concerns, but feels an exception should be made when it involves something dangerous. "I know those dogs aren't good to have around. When something like this happens, they should come and get those dogs so nothing like this can happen. That is something she didn't need to go through," Holmes said.

Warren Police Chief John Mandopolis says the animal control officer is normally given permission to come out on overtime when vicious dogs are involved. He says he's not sure why that didn't happen on Saturday.


TOPICS: Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: obsessiveparanoia; rdo; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: Ditter

No offense, but you had some bad luck.

Animals as some people are just bad.

Luck of the draw. You have to admit that the general majority of pitbull attacks are from areas that you or I would not venture in.

Keep an animal chained 24/7..


81 posted on 04/01/2009 7:15:46 PM PDT by Shyla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

I have two pure wolves. They love us. Do I let my daughter go into the enclosure without me? No. What they actually do is knock her down and sit on her. But they are what they are.

They love anyone that they have known since they were babies.

I f aperson went to go in there that they do not knwo..the wolves will go to the farthest area of the pen to keep away from an unknown person.

If pushed, I have no idea what would happen and I would never put myself in that position to learn. They are double fenced with a lock on the gate.
I was out there today and got licked and licked. They are my babies. Huge, it amazes me at times.

A stranger barging in and pushing it, well, they would get bit, bad. I think.

I pay extra insurance in case of this.

This is why I ensure that they are safe from some idiot....

BTW, my 5 lb dwarf yorkie/mini rat terrier rules them...funny to watch.


82 posted on 04/01/2009 7:22:10 PM PDT by Shyla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
"Communities are ill equipped to deal with wild animals capable of unstoppable aggression. We are also ill equipped to deal with dogs that demonstrate the same trait. Even when a pit bull is challenged by a group of humans it will not retreat. Wild animals, on the other hand, have self-preservation instincts. They usually flee when confronted in the same manner."

I saw that first hand with the beach incident. I don't know if a baseball bat to the head of the dog would have stopped it if the best kick of a horse couldn't (I saw at least a dozen direct hits that some sent the dog flying probably 20 feet). I totally believe the tazer comment that it wouldn't stop a pit bull.

Search the web for pictures of pit bulls. If they're not puppies, many are pits hanging by their teeth, clamped onto a rope or something similar with their owner pushing them back and forth. I don't know of any other breed that can support their own weight by their jaws while swinging back and forth with such ease. They look like they could support a child like a tire swing.

83 posted on 04/01/2009 7:31:14 PM PDT by uncommonsense (liberals see what they believe and conservatives believe what they see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

‘81


84 posted on 04/01/2009 7:33:48 PM PDT by uncommonsense (liberals see what they believe and conservatives believe what they see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Shyla

So now we agree,”animals as some people are just bad”.


85 posted on 04/01/2009 8:00:12 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: uncommonsense

It’s amazing to me that Anything could be kicked by a horse

even once and get up,,,

Much less keep attacking the horse,,,

I did see a pic on one thread of a pit being shot 3 times

with a .22,,,one round hit it just above the left eye,,,

He kept comin’ in the attack,,,

I have to walk my yorkie in the backyard now after 1 of the

pits next door charged us,,,barely made it in the house,,,

Now I carry a .44 with hollow-points instead of my 1911,,,

We have a puppy-mill next door,,,

House got rented to thugs,,,Section 8,,,Welfare Cheats!!!

6 pits in back on tow chains,,,

In a few months they will have 3 more litters IN the house.

That’s about 30 pups at $500.00 each,,,

No help at all from LEO or Animal Control...


86 posted on 04/01/2009 8:22:07 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68

Sounds like a nightmare. Any chance that you could move?


87 posted on 04/01/2009 8:35:26 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
Sounds like a nightmare. Any chance that you could move?
~~~
It sure has turned into a pain in the butt,,,

Still owe some on the place so I ain't goin’ nowhere,,,

The thugs are gunna Move,,,

When they get 3 litters IN the house,,,(like last year),,,

I'll call child services/welfare/Sec.8/?,,,

They will have no choice to remove the chilruns,,,

Chilruns gone,welfare gone,,,Section 8 house gone too,,,

After a year or so of all those pups in that house it must

stink reeeeally Baad in there,,,
(they keep the front door open)

Plan B : Sue the ass-clown owner of that house,,,

I am being denied full use of MY property because of them

Damned dawgs runnin’ loose... Plan C :...;0)

88 posted on 04/01/2009 9:11:12 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
Aw man! Nightmare next door! Sorry to hear all that. You have to walk around your own neighborhood looking like Terminator 1 with a sawed off shotgun strapped across your back. A .44 with 6 shots and a pack of pits on the loose - better hit the range for some practice.

Yep - the horse under attack was larger then normal and a good bit bigger than a zebra. From the Philly zoo web site:

"Zebras have a powerful kick which can be dangerous to a predator; a solid kick can injure or kill a lion"

Now if a zebra can kill a lion with a good kick and zebras are smaller then the horse and the horse couldn't stop the pit bull attack - I believe that says a LOT about why people are concerned, dare I say frightened, of pit bulls.

89 posted on 04/01/2009 9:15:03 PM PDT by uncommonsense (liberals see what they believe and conservatives believe what they see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: uncommonsense

Well,,,Such is life I guess,,,

Gotta take the good with the bad,,,

That old “Trench-Broom”(model 11 Remington) sits by the

back door,,,Loaded with Flechettes,,,($5.00 each)

.44 is loaded with 180gr. HP’s 950 fps.($35.00 per 50rd.)

I can’t take a chance of any “bounce” from ball-ammo(1911)

Too many Kids,,,

Now,,,The Battle of the Fleas starts,,,

Found 3 on the yorkie,,,flea bath and sprayed the house,,,

Tomorrow the yard,,,

Last year cost me over $300.00 for spray/etc.~yard/house,,,

No,,,thugs don’t give their dawgs a bath...


90 posted on 04/01/2009 10:12:48 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
So, the Romans DIDN’T use them to attack their enemies?

Pit bulls date from Roman times?

Did I read that correctly?

91 posted on 04/01/2009 10:20:42 PM PDT by SIDENET (Thailand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
OK, so you’re confirming my suspicion. You believe a mauling is acceptable, as long as nobody dies.

No I don't. The number of people seriously hurt each year by pit bulls alone is simply not an astronomical number that's required to make the insane response by the media justified.

That’s a detestable POV.

And yet not half as bad as people who want the government to step in and ban any and everything that poses any slight risk of someone getting hurt.

Reminds me of when the sale of lawn darts was banned in 1988 because a grand total of three children died.

92 posted on 04/02/2009 3:33:33 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

Google pit bull history. The dogs didn’t get their breed name until the late 1800s, IIRC. but they’ve been around for a long time.


93 posted on 04/02/2009 4:53:44 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

You’re the one who has been justifying Pit Bulls because of what you consider the low number of kills. Tell us, what number of killings and maulings and maimings would be too many? At what number would you agree to restrictive legislation?

When Pit Bulls attack, they don’t just make a couple of puncture wounds like most attacking dogs. They tear off faces, they tear off flesh, they break bones. And, for the most part, they don’t stop their attack until their victim is dead, or they are dead or so seriously wounded that the can’t continue. Or until someone is able to pull them away between bites (because once they bite down, they tend to not let go unless they sense an opportunity to attack a more vulnerable body part.)

They are one of the very few breeds with that behavior.

So, an attack by a Pit Bull is usually far worse, doing much more physical damage than just about any other breed.

This subject is just like any other in a Constitutional Republic. Our form of government was created for a citizenry that practices self-government. As the people move away from that model, the government is forced, because of the responsibility to protect the people, to craft laws that govern people who won’t govern themselves.

There are far too many Pit Bull owners who refuse to govern themselves, so local and State governments are forced to pick up the slack. When children are not safe to go to the park, or to walk to their friend’s house, government has to step in at a certain point, and protect the vulnerable.

Responsible Pit Bull owners are forced to abide by the same restrictions, because of the irresponsible. I have not seen any movement by any group of Pit Bull owners to challenge the irresponsible owners, or even to educate them. Instead, I hear whining because they’re going to be restricted by the inevitable move of government to govern the irresponsible owners.

You want to hold off the restrictive hand of government? Go start a big movement to confront all those bad owners and get them to change their behavior.

BTW, there have been more than 6,100 injuries from lawn darts, so once again, you want to focus on the number of deaths and ignore the injuries. That gives the distinct impression, regardless of your protestations to the contrary, that injuries are OK with you. It makes your protests seem insincere.


94 posted on 04/02/2009 5:30:10 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
I have not seen any movement by any group of Pit Bull owners to challenge the irresponsible owners, or even to educate them.

Check out Best Friends. They rehabbed a lot of Vick's fighting dogs.

95 posted on 04/02/2009 5:33:43 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: kanawa

The fact that I used MY SIGNATURE LINE twice today, in different threads, should clue you in.


96 posted on 04/02/2009 5:41:54 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

All I know to say is you’re going down a very slippery slope when you start getting the government involved in banning things that may potentially cause harm.


97 posted on 04/02/2009 5:51:39 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Admirable, but not what I was suggesting.


98 posted on 04/02/2009 6:06:51 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Have we read about any of Vick’s rehabbed fighting dogs yet? We will. I wouldn’t get near a rehabbed fighting dog, that is nuts.


99 posted on 04/02/2009 6:12:33 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

I haven’t yet said what I think ought to happen, and how government OUGHT to do. I’ve only said what government inevitably does.

I think local and State governments ought to make it terribly expensive for owners of dangerous dogs to act irresponsibly.

Currently, in some jurisdictions, owners are allowed one attack by their dog without any penalty. And in some jurisdictions, if the attack occurs on the owner’s property, the victim is not allowed to sue for damages.

I’d like to see both of those allowances disappear from the statutes. Owners of dangerous dogs should be held legally responsible for the actions of their pets all the time, not just after one attack and not only off their property.

There should be no restrictions to the ability of victims to sue or of the amount owners can be sued for. And I think the damages won in a suit should supersede bankruptcies. In the case of a victim who is killed by a dog, I think none of the owner’s property should be off limits in a suit, including their home. And I think the government should have the power to seize property and money won in such a suit, after allowing a reasonable amount of time for the loser to voluntarily pay.

So, no don’t ban the dogs, just make it unbearable for an irresponsible owner when their dog attacks and causes injury or death.

(Also, I think that if the dangerous dog injures or kills another dog, the owner of the victim should be able to sue for and collect for far more than the purchase price of their dog.)


100 posted on 04/02/2009 6:24:58 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson