Posted on 05/21/2010 4:46:38 PM PDT by solosmoke
GIRARD - The owner of the dog whose bite left a 12-year-old with more than 100 stitches is sorry the girl was injured but says she was not bitten while walking past the 15-month chocolate Labrador as she claims, rather because she was too close to it.
"Destiny (Turner) walked over to Schnook and put her face next to the dog's face," Christina Morris said Thursday. "That's when he bit her face."
The girl claims she was walking toward her house, 211 Broadview, about 7 p.m. Sunday when the chained dog leaped on top of her and began biting her face.
Morris says she has told Destiny and other kids in the neighborhood on numerous occasions not to go too near to the dog, which she said was chained to a tree in the rear of the house Sunday.
Morris said she has owned Schnook for five to six months and that he listens to commands.
"He is basically a good dog," she said. "Yes, he can be aggressive at times. Kids in the neighborhood throw rocks at him at times. I think something may have happened at the prior owner's home." Schnook, meanwhile, has been kept at the home of Nick Spelich, 622 Johnson Plank Road, Bazetta. Spelich is Morris' sister's boyfriend.
(Excerpt) Read more at tribtoday.com ...
What should we do with the children’s parents? They obviously did not take precautions to ensure the safety of the child.
Why dont we just euthanize all the dogs out there. They are all potentially dangerous. I was bit on the nose by a chihuahua.
I don’t know, do you think 12 year old children should be locked up? I don’t have enough info to make that determination. Do you have kids? Are they locked up?
>The owner is clearly at fault here, and is an idiot to boot. He’s an irresponsible pet owner. He knew the dog had a tendency to bite and yet he put the dog in a situation in which he could bite someone.<
Not only that, he had an attractive nuisance. Like a swimming pool, if you have a dog that a kid can get to, if the kid gets bitten, you will be held responsible. He can say the kid was “too close” all he wants. It is up to him to not put a dangerous dog in a situation where it is accessible to a minor child.
He’s liable. Hope his homeowner’s insurance is paid up.
I dont debate strawmen.
The children’s parents did not do a good enough job teaching the danger of animals. As long as children are not able to make reasonable decisions for themselves, the parents are responsible.
“Why dont we just euthanize all the dogs out there. They are all potentially dangerous. I was bit on the nose by a chihuahua.”
Why not just take responsibility for our pets? Is it really that much of an inconvenience to know your dog’s temperament and train/socialize/restrain it accordingly? You would think people were being asked to do something beyond their means! That’s what it takes if you want to have pets. I would say the same for those that don’t feel the need to teach their children about safety and supervise them if they are young. It’s just asking for trouble. Dogs are just dumb animals, and cannot comprehend morality or consequences. It is up to the owners to make sure their dogs are not a danger, and these people failed to do that.
Because the dog has demonstrated that he will viciously attack (non-violent) people. Its one thing for a dog to attack someone breaking in or hurting its owner—its another thing for it to maul a 12 year old girl. If I owned such a dog, I’d have it put down—for liability reasons.
How is killing a dog that bites taking responsibility?
And who made you the bureaucrat in charge of telling people how to raise their animals? Did the dog seek anyone out and bite?
The dog attacked someone who was encroaching on its territory.
And it shouldnt matter if it attacks a 12 year old girl or a 40 year old or some guy breaking in. How is that different than the rationale for a hate crime - the crime is worse based on who is hurt.
Must be nice to be able to kill something just to avoid liability issues.
Must be nice to be able to kill something just to avoid liability issues.
“How is killing a dog that bites taking responsibility?
And who made you the bureaucrat in charge of telling people how to raise their animals? Did the dog seek anyone out and bite?”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Killing a dog that bites prevents it from biting again, but I would prefer the owners had done this before the incident occurred. They knew the dog had issues, and instead of doing the right thing and either keeping it away from people or euthanizing it, they decided to do nothing. What if it had been a toddler? A hundred stitches on a twelve-year old translates very badly to a smaller child.
As for the comment about me telling people how to raise their dogs, I have been involved in animal rescue for years upon years. I have seen so many people attacked and even killed because the owners chose to ignore the signs their dogs were showing, or they were oblivious to the issue because their dog was always chained or running loose, which meant that they knew nothing about their dog as it was never even around them. Responsible dog owners already KNOW this stuff! I was not the inventor of the whole “taking responsibility” movement. I don’t give a rat’s behind if it offends someone that I have an opinion about what to do with their dog. It won’t be up to them anymore when it bites and Animal Control comes to take it away and the police fine them and they have to go to court.
What bothers me is that people seem to think their rights to be a bunch of morons with their pets somehow trumps public safety, which is sad more than anything. We are quickly becoming a society of victims, unwilling to admit when we mess up, putting the blame on everyone else, including the “family” dog, and crying foul because we were asked to do our share, as if that were some impossibly difficult task!
Right, like I said. You kill something to avoid a major hassle.
Why dont we put the people down then? They are the ones who left the dog out. All Im saying is, how can you claim to be acting responsibly by killing something that did not know what it was doing?
I know animal control can come and take it and put it down. Doesnt make it right.
What kind of hassle? Like the hassle of having a toddler’s death on your conscience? What’s so bad about killing a dangerous animal? I think people are more important, and would quickly dispatch either of my dogs, or both, if they proved to be human-aggressive. There are far too many dogs dying in shelters that won’t bite to waste my time on the unstable ones. I would rather save a good dog’s life and prevent a parent from losing their child than mess with a dog that had to be under lock and key all the time.
It may not be the dog’s fault, but what would you recommend instead? The owners were obviously unfit to handle such a dangerous animal, so unless they could find a suitable home for the dog to live out its days (which are in short supply already, even for nice dogs), what is the harm in putting it out of its misery? Dogs that unstable are not living happily, but rather stressed and fearful, which is really no way to live at all. They can’t tell us when they’re uncomfortable in any other way than with their teeth. I think it would be cruel to keep it alive if it was so on-edge that it couldn’t handle being close to a human, which is what it was bred to do.
Or the hassle of being sued, which is what we were talking about. You would rather kill a dog than be sued.
Maybe you should not be allowed to own a dog.
And who put those dogs in shelters, animal control?
The people allowed a potential threat on a toddler’s life. They would be just as guilty as a DUI manslaughter. Prison, at minimum.
Who says it is in misery? It was acting like an animal, maybe it is happy. Have you talked to unstable dogs and found out they are stressed and fearful?
What about unstable people? They could just as easily kill someone. Why dont we put to death everyone with mental issues? Lets start with soldiers with PTSD...some of them snap, so how in the issue of public safety, why dont we just euthanize them?
My lab is a couch potato even if I want to play with her...the look on her face when I call her is *are you talkin to me*. But she does know what *you want a cookie* means and will respond to that...
I value a human’s life over a dog’s, every time. Lawsuits have nothing to do with it. If you think killing a dangerous dog is so horrible, then what would your solution be? Would euthanasia be an option if the dog had killed someone, or would you prefer it continue to live out its “happy” existence? Just because it’s not capable of thinking morally, that doesn’t make its actions acceptable. I don’t consider euthanasia a punishment for the animal. I think it’s a hard choice to make, but a necessary one.
Why do you keep trying to say the dog is unhappy. And how is killing something not a punishment?
And no, I dont think euthanasia is viable. For all the dog knew, it was protecting its owner.
Why not just kill the owner. After all, you act like the dog is property. And if someone uses their property to kill, we dont destroy the property, we destroy the owner.
And yes, lawsuits have something to do with it. You said you would put the dog down to avoid liability. Killing something to escape your own problems, kind of sounds like the excuse abortionists make.
I told you my solution, jail the owner. I would rather the dog die on its own in the woods, where it had a chance, than be put to death by some righteous holier than thou type.
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.