Again....pit bulls. To dog apologists, I say: no comment.
If I read it correctly it said “may have been” and “pitbull mixes”.
That hardly rises to the level of facts.
When referring to dogs and using the term mix that is a pretty broad and amorphous designation. You would be surprised to know how many dogs you see that have some genetic evidence of American Staffordshire Terrier.
In a strange way this kind of reminds me of a time in America when if a person had one drop of black blood they were black for purposes of segregation. No differentiation was made between 1% and 100%.
If you run into a pack of feral dogs out in rural Florida, I don’t think you’re going to find the result to be much different whether they are 1% or 100% pitbull. I find it hard to believe that the hundreds of thousands of wild, feral dogs in some Florida counties are all genuine pit bulls.
Obviously these could have been largely pitbull, I say largely because if they’re feral there’s a lot of interbreeding. However there’s nothing in this particular news article the rises to the level of facts as to what dogs or what kind of dogs attack the man.
You can sum up the entire article into one sentence: the man was attacked by wild dogs and the police have picked up some dogs which may or may not be the dogs that did it and may or may not have pitbull blood. That is the entire article in one sentence.
Scooter100 wrote: “Again....pit bulls. To dog apologists, I say: no comment.”
So, please provide a legally sufficient definition of a pit bull. A definition that would stand up to a legal challenge.
Where did the proliferation of pit bulls come from and when. It seems that within a few years they are everywhere. Reminds me of the leftists. Husband just added “no one wants them either, nasty bass terds”.