Posted on 09/14/2007 5:04:52 AM PDT by Abathar
DETROIT -- An elderly man and a woman were mauled to death by pit bulls in Iosco Township, Mich., on Thursday afternoon, police said.
Michigan State Police were called to a farm and found a 90-year-old man mauled to death by dogs.
The Iosco Sheriff’s Department said the man’s 70-year-old son went to check on his father, who was visiting the property, and found him dead in the yard.
Police said there were still pit bulls in the yard when the son arrived.
Upon further investigation, MSP found dogs had also fatally mauled a 56-year-old woman who was jogging, just west of the property.
Investigators confiscated 10 pit bulls from a nearby residence.
MSP said there are still some dangerous dogs at large in the area.
The deaths are still under investigation by MSP.
That's because I wasn't on the jury.
I think of it this way: If the only thing these owners did wrong was own a dangerous dog breed, then you’re not going to get a conviction, unless you make that a crime.
That’s because any other breed that is involved in attacks is ignored, unless it’s a “big, scary” dog. Then the press refers to the dog as “pit-bull LIKE”.
The press did exactly the same thing with German Shepherds, then it was Dobermann Pinschers, next were the “wolf-crosses”, then Rottweilers, and now Pit Bulls.
Next it’ll be Circassian Wolfhounds or some such.
You're missing the point (I suspect deliberately) - there have to be TWO conditions if your pit bull attacks someone - owning a dangerous breed and failing to control it.
If you leave the parking brake off and your car rolls over someone you are usually charged for negligent homicide. If you don't have a fence around your pool and a kid drowns you are charged. It is not illegal to own a car or a pool, but you are charged anyway because you didn't take the proper actions the protect others from your car/pool. Likewise if your dog attacks someone, then you obviously have failed to control the animal
Dog Of Peace Alert
Vicious dogs attacked and killed two more people Thursday afternoon, even as police were continuing to probe the death of a 4-month-old child who died the previous day when a Rottweiler pounced on her during a party at a private home in Warren.
In the Thursday incident in rural Iosco Township in Livingston County, police said a 91-year-old man and a woman, 56, who was apparently a passing jogger, were set upon by a marauding pack of at least 10 dogs on Crofoot Road.
Alex Gierlach, who also lives on Crofoot, said Thursday night that it was his brother Ed Gierlach who died in the attack.
“I’m quite distraught about this,” he said.
“He was my brother. These pit bulls that did this ... you hear about these deaths. I’d like to see some legislation to get rid of these dogs. How many deaths have to occur before something is done?”
Police have not confirmed the breed of dogs involved in the attack.
A relative of Gierlach’s on the scene said the jogger’s body was found about 100 feet from the house where Gierlach lived.
State Trooper Jeff Frasier said the dogs were rounded up after the attack and taken to the Livingston County Animal Shelter. Police said the dogs were found at a residence in the area.
Kelly King, a neighbor on nearby Elliot, said she had seen two stray dogs, a Doberman and a pit bull, on her street several days ago, and was concerned for the safety of her own pets.
Thursday’s attack comes a day after the death of Kylie Cox in Warren. The baby was attacked Wednesday in a private home by a Rottweiler.
The dog was put to death Thursday afternoon while relatives grieved for the infant.
The baby’s 17-year-old mother, Alexis Cox, left the child in the living room about 5:45 p.m. Wednesday to go into the kitchen to prepare the baby’s formula, “and the dog came out of nowhere,” said Kimberly Sundman, Alexis Cox’s aunt.
“This is devastating,” Sundman said. “Alexis can’t even talk right now. She loved that baby so much. She took her everywhere. Warren has a special program that allows mothers to take their children to school, and she even took the baby to classes with her.
“She was young, but she was a good mother,” Sundman said. “She left the room for just a second and this happened. It’s terrible.”
Dog was aggressive before
Chopper, the 120-pound Rottweiler who mauled Kylie, was euthanized by lethal injection at the Macomb County Animal Shelter, Chief Animal Control Officer Susan Jeroue said.
After the attack, the dog’s owner told police Chopper had been aggressive with children on at least one other occasion. Sundman said Alexis Cox was only a casual acquaintance of the dog’s owner.
Police are considering whether to bring charges against Alexis Cox, or the dog’s owner. Detectives Thursday were re-interviewing people who were at the party, Warren Police Sgt. Louis Galasso said.
“We’re still sorting through the details,” Galasso said.
“What presents somewhat of a problem is, we don’t know exactly who knew what. We know there was a party at the house, but the mother of the baby didn’t live there, and neither did the owner of the dog. So we don’t know if the mother even knew there was a dog at the house.”
As detectives tried Thursday to sort out the details, animal experts offered mixed opinions about whether Rottweilers are an inherently aggressive breed.
Rottweilers often are bred to have aggressive traits, said James Gillingham, an animal behaviorist at Central Michigan University.
“You can breed for many different characteristics, including hunting, pointing, and, yes, aggression,” Gillingham said.
“Over the past century or so, larger dogs like Rottweilers, pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, and German shepherds were often bred as guard dogs, so now you have a higher instance of aggression in those breeds.”
Owner defends Rottweilers
But Dr. Julie Cappel, a veterinarian at Warren Woods Veterinary Hospital in Warren, said Rottweilers are no more aggressive than any other breed.
“They’re not specifically an aggressive breed,” Cappel said. “It depends how they were raised. I’ve seen some mean ones — but I’ve also seen some mean chihuahuas. The difference is, a chihuahua isn’t strong enough to kill a baby, whereas a larger dog like a Rott has strong jaws and could do more damage.”
Mary Liz Curtin is a Rottweiler owner from Clawson. “We’re on my 4th Rottweiler, and they’ve all been delightful,” said the mother. “But there are problems with the way the breed has been treated, just like with pit bulls. There are lovely pit bulls out there, but because they are big, strong dogs, they’re often mishandled and misused.
“But no dog should be left alone with an infant — especially if it’s not your dog,” Curtin said. “Kids do things sometimes to scare dogs, and you don’t know what’s going to happen with a strange dog.”
Galasso said detectives are trying to determine if Kylie’s mother was criminally negligent by leaving the baby alone with the dog. He said police likely will sit down with Macomb County prosecutors today to determine what charges, if any, will be brought.
The baby’s name originally was incorrectly identified by police as Lylie.
According to Galasso, Kylie’s mother, who was not identified by police, brought the baby to the party still strapped to her car seat. When the woman left the living room to make formula for the baby, the 2-year-old dog suddenly attacked the child, Galasso said.
The dog pulled Kylie from the car seat and began violently shaking her, Galasso said. The 15 guests in the home began kicking the dog in an effort to get it to release the baby. The owner of the dog was finally able to free Kylie from its jaws, and the girl was taken to St. John Oakland Hospital, where she was pronounced dead of massive head trauma.
After the attack, the dog’s owner brought the animal to the Warren Police Department.
“Everyone has been cooperative,” Galasso said.
A criminal conviction requires that they prove more than that they failed to control it. If that were the only thing that was required, then every owner whose dog killed someone would go to jail because clearly they failed to control it.
Unfortunately, the prosecutor also must prove a mental element, usually actual intent to cause injury, or negligence so gross as to suggest actual intent to cause injury. That is where the problem is. The owner says it has never attacked before, or that it has never caused any injury before, etc., and maybe it’s true.
In most cases, there is no actual crime unless you actually make it illegal to own the breed.
The owner of these dogs needs to be neutered. I hate that a breed of dog which I have always found to be loyal and friendly is often owned by people who revel in the negative image pitbulls have ( too often factual). These owners breed inferior dogs with bad traits. They encourage aggression and do not train or discipline their dogs. They are major cretins who should be jailed.
Because of an owner’s ignorance and neglect a man and woman are dead. What a senseless and horrible death. God be with their families.
>Nah, I don’t think so. The problem is that despite all the chatter about it not being the dog’s fault, but rather the owner’s fault, you really can’t convince a jury of that.
And any smart lawyer is just going to point out that yorkies and labs don’t often kill, so that it must be the breed’s fault. And it’s not illegal to own the breed, so if that is the only thing the owner did wrong, how can he be convicted?<
I’m not sure of your motive. Do you want to see people who keep dogs so irresponsibly they cause the death of another, walk free? Do you think if you ban one breed, then such a person will not move on to a different potentially dangerous breed or mix?
There is a segment of the population that doesn’t look upon dogs simply as pets. They prize a dog that can injure their neighbor’s dog, or which can injure a human opponent. Like it or not, this segment of society has grown in the past few decades. Do you not want society to have effective laws with which to punish these people?
Of course an individual can be convicted and sentenced to jail if his dog kills a human being. For example, in Hawaii:
““ Sec. 7-7.2 Prohibited acts— Conditions on owner— Penalties.
(a) A dog owner commits the offense of negligent failure to control a dangerous dog, if the [person] owner negligently fails to take reasonable measures to prevent the dog from attacking, without provocation, a person or animal and such attack results in: (1) the maiming or causing of serious injury to or the destruction of an animal or (2) bodily injury to a person other than the owner. A person convicted under this subsection shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and sentenced in accordance with subsections (c), (d), and (e).
(b) For the purposes of this section, “reasonable measures to prevent the dog from attacking” shall include but not be limited to: (1) measures required to be taken under Article 4 of this chapter to prevent the dog from becoming a stray; and (2) any conditions imposed by the court for the training of the dog or owner or for the supervision, confinement or restraint of the dog for a previous conviction under this section.
(c) A dog owner convicted under subsection (a) shall be sentenced to [one or more of] the following:
(1) A fine of not less than [$50] $500 nor more than $2,000;
(2) A period of imprisonment of up to 30 days, or in lieu of imprisonment, a period of probation of not more than six months in accordance with the procedures, terms and conditions provided in HRS Chapter 706, Part II; and
(3) Restitution to any individual who has suffered bodily injury or property damage as a result of an attack by the dog[;] where the individual suffers financial losses or medical expenses due to the attack. For the purposes of this subsection, medical expenses may include the costs of necessary counseling services.”
The infamous San Francisco case saw Marjorie Knoller convicted and sent to prison:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/31/BAGU4Q4L3U6.DTL
“Knoller, 51, who now lives in Florida, was paroled in 2004 after serving most of a four-year sentence for manslaughter. If her murder conviction is reinstated, she must return to prison for a term of 15 years to life.”
I have five dogs. Trust me they are usually gentle. But I would never ever say “ don’t worry my dog won’t bite” Because given the right or wrong circumstances any dog will bite. They are animals and have only two reactions when overstressed by fear or pain ( other stressers also can evoke reaction). That is to flee or fight. Too often dogs under stress are unable to flee so they bite. That is why it is an owner’s responsibility to always be cued to their dog’s body language and have the dog under restraint in any situation outside of your own home or property.
Sure, I have no difficulty punishing the owner, but like I said, you usually can’t get a conviction under the current law. If you make it illegal to own the breed, then you will. And clearly some breeds are worse than others. Banning pit bulls ought to be an easy decision. Banning the other dangerous breeds might be more difficult.
Owners should be held responsible, always.
Fences don’t control wild animals.
You are wrong.
From the link in post #72
The trial judge reduced Knoller's conviction to involuntary manslaughter, saying the defendant hadn't known her 140-pound Presa Canario was likely to kill someone. A state appeals court overruled the judge and said a defendant who knows he or she is subjecting someone to a danger of serious injury can be guilty of murder if the victim dies.On Thursday, the state's high court rejected both the lower-court standards and said Knoller, or any other defendant responsible for unintentional but fatal injuries, can be convicted of murder if they acted with "conscious disregard of the danger to human life.''
It would appear that although the breed is legal, their known dangerous properites would constititute "conscious disregard" I personally hope the b**ch (appropriate pejorative) goes back to jail.
>Sure, I have no difficulty punishing the owner, but like I said, you usually can’t get a conviction under the current law<
Then why have there already been successful convictions? You make no sense.
We have got to make it very, very unpleasant on people who endanger the lives of their neighbors, when they insist on encouraging dogs, regardless of breed, to be uncontrollably aggressive toward innocent human beings.
Not at all. That just proves my point:
“conscious disregard of the danger to human life.”
That’s very difficult to prove. The Knoller case was a very good case for the prosecutor, and they needed a CA jury to get the conviction. I suspect that if they’d tried the case in GA, or here in FL, there would have been an acquittal. If you remember, that was a very high profile case. The put a lot of effort into it, and it made national headlines. The reason why it was so high profile is that such prosecutions are so unusual.
>It would appear that although the breed is legal, their known dangerous properites would constititute “conscious disregard” I personally hope the b**ch (appropriate pejorative) goes back to jail.<
The dogs’ dangerous propensities existed because they had been attack trained, by a convicted criminal. Had these dogs been spayed and neutered, and had they been socialized and obedience trained for control, not for mauling human beings, that woman would still be alive.
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.