Posted on 06/23/2009 11:30:56 AM PDT by JoeProBono
Sheriff's deputies said it's the first case of its kind they can remember in King County -- one in which a pit bull was used as a weapon in brutal attacks on women.
About 6:30 p.m., a 63-year-old woman stopped her car in SeaTac when she saw four kids kicking a pit bull. A 15-year-old girl told her to mind her own business, then punched her in the head, police say. The dog bit the woman, causing bruises and puncture wounds on her hand and thigh.
Another woman watched the attack and followed the kids to North SeaTac Park. Once the kids realized they were being followed, police said, the 15-year-old head-butted, punched and kicked the second woman so hard that the teen's foot was injured.
Police say the pit bull was turned loose on the woman and grew more and more violent as the children encouraged him. She remained at Harborview Medical Center on Monday in satisfactory condition.
Some advocates for and against pit bulls agree that the children's alleged criminal action was the problem, but the case again raises the question: Are pit bulls or their owners the problem?
The answer varies depending on who is asked.
"People will say there are no bad dogs, just bad dog owners," King County Sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart said. "We don't agree with that."
Deputies see more animal-related calls in the summer -- a season when overall call volume increases. Police are not dog experts, Urquhart noted, but he said they do find bad dogs along with bad owners.
"We're not sure if this was a bad dog," he said of the pit bull, "Snaps," who is now at a King County animal shelter. "But clearly he had a bad owner."
The deed, not the breed
Don Jordan, director of the Seattle Animal Shelter, has heard outrage in the past few years about pit bulls. In the early 1990s, Dobermans were the problem, he said. In the mid '90s, Rottweilers got most of the complaints.
"Our approach has always been that we focus on the deed, not the breed," he said. " If you're going to properly protect public safety, you look at enacting ordinances or requirements that affect all dog owners."
There were 40,136 licensed dogs in Seattle and 1,298 of those were pit bulls, according to Seattle Animal Shelter statistics through Feb. 11, the most recent available.
Of all breeds, pit bulls were most likely to bite, according to shelter officials -- 547 of 2,914 reported incidents between 1997 and last year. They also were identified in fully a quarter of menacing incidents during that time period -- 1,066 of 4,189.
Labrador retrievers, German shepherds and Rottweilers also had relatively high numbers. But shelter statistics also show the number of overall dog bites decreased by more than half in 2008 from the previous year.
There were 134 bite calls and 189 menacing complaints last year, down from 304 and 315 the previous year, respectively. Pit bulls were responsible for 89 of the bites and menacing calls, down from 150 the previous year.
Jordan isn't quite sure why there's been a decrease.
"I think there's been a lot of media attention last year about (a previous) SeaTac incident," he said. "Maybe dog owners are being more responsible."
Pit bull rap sheet
Last September, two pit bulls attacked a 71-year-old woman as she walked her grandchildren through their SeaTac neighborhood. The woman later said she thought she was going to die as the dogs ripped her face, legs and arms.
A sheriff's deputy shot the dogs, killing one. Another deputy killed the second pit bull nearby when it remained aggressive. The woman's neighbor who owned the dogs, Travis Dean Cunningham, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for the attack, plus a firearms violation filed in a separate case.
Family said the elderly attack victim, who underwent hours of surgery, didn't attend the sentencing because it was too emotional. Prosecutor Dan Satterberg described the attack as a "case of dangerous dogs and a dangerous owner."
Rather than banning pit bulls, it would be better to prevent some people from owning the dogs -- including felons and those convicted of dog fighting or gang-related crimes, said Julie Russell of Seattle, spokeswoman for Families Against Breed Bans.
"It sounds like these dogs were being taunted and abused and these are just the kinds of kids we want to get the dogs away from," she said of the most recent attack suspects, who deputies say may face felony charges. "It's not the dogs that are unsafe, it's that there are unsafe owners who mismanage their jobs."
Russell, who owns four dogs, grew up terrified of pit bulls. When her husband picked out their first one a few years ago, she said "it was a source of tension for a couple weeks." She initially wouldn't leave her Labrador alone in the car with the pit bull.
"After about two weeks, I realized she's a highly emotional dog," Russell said of Simon, one of her two pit bulls. "I could not imagine her harming anything or anyone."......
Thanks for posting, interesting article.
I wish you had informed me of your thoughts and feelings
before setting up my interview with G. Liddy,
I never would have agreed.
What is more dangerous — a handgun or a pitbull?
Well, a handgun will sit on the table minding its own business, until someone picks it up, points and pulls the trigger.
A pitbull will not sit on the table and mind its own business. It has a mind and will of its own. I personally know someone who swore up and down their pit wouldn’t hurt a fly, and was good around children, until their pit without warning or provoking, attacked and permanently maimed a child. He would have done more damage, but a neighbor shot it dead before it moved on to the next child standing nearby. Wringing of the hands went on for months and years, over “We had no idea our dog would do such a thing!” As Judge Judy would say....”Idiots!”
This country is about rights and personal responsibility. The Republican party (in theory) stands for both principles also. I don’t understand why anyone would argue that your right to own a pitbull is over at the end of the leash, the instant that animal is no longer within your control. For that reason, I believe any dog owner whose dog injures or kills another person should be responsible, and when a death occurs, they should spend prison time locked up. I don’t think it should be years and years, but it should be proportional to the crime of negligence, and should “hurt” enough to send a message that people are always and forever more important than any animal.
Who wouldn’t agree with that? I think it’s rational and balanced.
I once saw a PBT owner disengage his dog from biting another... he choked it out. Once the dog was "out", the bite was gone.
This is the problem. You can breed aggression out of dogs, look at what they did with the British Bulldog. They took a savage dog and made him into a total wuss. Wouldn't take to long either. But it seems alot of people like the dog BECAUSE of its reputation, and its these same owners who dont properly train them.
I think its a mistake for the AKC to NOT have the breed officially listed. They should list it, and as a part of the judging criteria, they should include a much more docile temperament, and even a smaller head size and/or size overall.
he Netherlands Cancelled Country 1993 On June 9, 2008 Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Gerda Verburg announced the ban on Pitbulls will be canceled before the end of the year. The reason for this was that there was no reduction of biting incidents with dogs since Pit Bulls were banned. The ban was installed in 1993 after three biting incidents where three children were killed.[15] New rules will no longer select on breed or Molosser looks but require a behavior test for any large dog that shows signs of aggression[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull
I completely agree, and very well said.
All dogs are dangerous, period. I’ve had chihuahuas go after me, little dogs tend to have big attitudes. Singling out pit bulls is just dumb. You can live in fear of dogs if you want, I’ve lived with them all my life, treat them right and you’re fine, and don’t be around people that don’t treat them right. Kind of like a gun.
That is true and I agree, but not “singling out pit bulls” is about as smart as not racial profiling young, middle eastern men traveling alone with an open-ended plane ticket and searching grandma because “all people could possibly be dangerous”.
Middle eastern men tend to bomb things and pit bulls tend to attack people. Period.
Did you look at the report upthread coming out of the Netherlands? They banned pit bulls and dog attacks didn’t drop one bit. Singling them out accomplished nothing.
And as for who does bombings, ahh how quickly people forget the IRA.
Are you saying you would poison any pit bull in your neighborhood?
You talk a lot but you didn’t answer the question. I’ll try again. Would you poison any pit bull in your neighborhood? Try a simple yes-or-no answer without any insults or bragging about your great knowledge, please.
What biological mechanism did you have to unlock?
Respiratory. A pit clamps on, you take a shovel or rake handle, slide it into its collar and twist however you must to choke the dog. As it asphyxiates, the jaws will unlock.
This is an ancient thread, what brought you here?
But if asphyxiation prompts the dog to release, then the jaws are not *locked*.
Therefore, what biological mechanism unlocks the jaws?
An American Staffordshire terrier is a member of canis familiaris.
What biological mechanism of canis familiaris enables it to lock its jaws? Can you point to this biological mechanism in a German shepherd, rottweiler or Akita?
As to the date of the thread, I didn’t notice.
As to the date of the thread, I didn’t notice.
What biologicial mechanism locks jaws you ask? Training. Over hundreds or thousands of years. Those rings through bulls’ noses were not kinky Spanish fetishes. They were to assist bulldogs - any breed - in securing the bull until the owner had a chance to pen it or rope it.
We have similar training in the US with democrats. These Dem rats press bars for free food, clothing, housing etc. and all they have to do to secure this cornucopia is continue pressing this bar to keep their benefactors benefitting them. You might ask, are Democrats inherently and biologically bar-pressers? No. They are trained to do so.
Training is not a biological mechanism. Nor does any amount of training produce a biological mechanism permitting jaws to *lock*.
An American Staffordshire terrier is a member of canis familiaris. Members of canis familiaris have the same biolocial structures, albeit in different sizes and sometimes, different positions.
Once again, what biological mechanism allows an American staffordshire terrier to lock 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.