Posted on 04/06/2009 7:39:41 AM PDT by stinkerpot65
The scene was so gruesome that even seasoned emergency responders broke down and cried.
"They were never agressive; never seen them agressive," Watson said. "Never bit no one."
"I'm scared," Watson said. "I've got three kids who are going to be without a mom to be there for them."
Watson was sentenced to seven years in prison; that's part of the reason she can't stop crying.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Hmm... so you're a father looking at a kid with an anger problem and you know he's going explode and hurt someone some day. Are you responsible for future actions of the kid?
Oooh, nice straw man there... No, dogs are property any children are not. I can take a dangerous dog out and shoot it, problem solved. Not so much with a child.
Now, if I had been informed that my child was having mental issues and was capable of doing horrible things to other people and did nothing about the situation? Sure, I have responsibility there. It's the same argument about the difference between Cockers and Pits. I know that my daughter is not going to kill anyone any time soon. If I thought she might, I would likely do something about it.
You don’t get the point. In most areas owning a pit bull isn’t against the law. I fully support making pit bull ownership illegal, but until it happens, you can’t make a crime out of being an idiot.
“I would like just one honest, reasonable, thoughtful statement as to why anyone wants to own one of these dogs. This is not a rhetorical question, nor am I seeking to be confrontational. I just want to hear why drug-free law-abiding citizens choose to own a pit bull.”
This is just a guess, but I think the answer for some pit bull owners is that they think it’s cool to own something really dangerous. My father-in-law used to keep rattlesnakes in a cage; there is something fascinating about keeping a dangerous animal. His judgment has been waning in recent years, and a couple years ago, he reached in the cage and grabbed one of his rattlers behind the head (luckily without being bitten), and pulled it out of the cage to show it off to one of his grandkids. Upon hearing about this, the next day his son took all of his rattlesnakes to a wilderness area, and set them loose.
The VA Tech shooter is a perfect example. Nobody took responsibility, the parents didn't want responsibility so they sent him to college. One teacher tried to take responsibility but only partly and failed. There is no subsitute for responsibility, without it you have no rights.
It’s called “liability”. You don’t have to make a law making ownership illegal. It’s a property issue, actually. Same with owning a legal gun. Same standard.
You sound just like my neighbor, who’s nice gentle black lab would not hurt anyone. One day I was in my garage, and heard a low growl. I turned around to see that gentle black lab crouched down low baring his teeth and growling at me ( not the first time either ) I hit it in the head with a shovel...told the neighbors, and to this day the dog still runs loose....
You must have mis-read my posts. First off, I would never let ANY dog run loose. Second, if my dog did get loose and act as this dog did to you, it would be gone immediately. Third, I would never own a lab in the city anyway, because I would not be willing to take that responsibility.
From the article:
Watson was sentenced to seven years in prison; that’s part of the reason she can’t stop crying.
The main reason, she says, is she can’t stop thinking about a little boy who used to play at her house with her kids.
He might have been killed on his own property. But I do wonder about his parents/guardians who *ever* let him go to that house.
That was a mutt that was part pom, part pit bull. (Okay, it wasn't part pit bull but it was a mix.) My Pomeranian could barely get your finger in its mouth and it couldn't bite very hard to begin with. Pit bulls can get their jaws around your head and they have incredible jaw strength. They are an aggressive breed and are known to be unpredictable and no other breed kills more people in this country. I wouldn't own one or let my kids play at a home with pit bulls, and I wouldn't care if the government banned them. There are all sorts of animals we don't allow people to keep as pets, or that we regulate much more strictly and require people to get special licenses to keep them. It wouldn't bother me if they did the same for pit bulls. I've see some pretty darned severe dog mauling cases come through the courts and they almost always involved pit bulls. We'd be better off if there were a whole lot less of those animals out there. They are dangerous animals and there is no good reason to have them when there are so many other good dog breeds to choose from that aren't so dangerous.
If you own a Pit Bull, or any other breed of animal, that kills another human being, you have committed murder and should be treated as such. End of story.Ditto! Well said
Should this apply to children also?
Spokane, were you saying that the parents of children who commit crimes should be held responsible for the acts of their minor children? Hmmm.
So let's change the dogs for the dog owners' 12 year old son. The son gets into a fight with the other child, which results in the child's death. The son is killed by the police when separating the two. No one knows how the fight started. Would everyone want to send the parents to jail for the actions of the son?
You know, sometimes tragedies just happen and no one needs to be "punished" for them. Reading this thread, I would swear some of the posters snuck over from D.U., making fun of the dog owners' grammar, taking an urban view of things, etc.
The bottom line is a child was killed, which is terrible. But, we do not know the circumstances.
Would you judge things different if the child was poking the dogs with a stick? What if he was dangling potato chips over them and snatching them away? We do not know if the child was doing those things, though other children have done things like that. We do not know if the child provoked the dogs, or not. There's no reason to assume he did, but there's also no reason to assume the dogs would suddenly turn and attack, other than their breed.
Based on the breed, the owners are going to jail for SEVEN years? Would they be going to jail if the dogs were Goldens?
The average sentence given to child molesters is seven years (Source). The average sentence given for violent crime is seven and a half years (Source).
If the owners bred the dogs for fighting and let them run free, it would be one thing. But they weren't. If the dogs had a history of violent behavior, it would be one thing. But these dogs did not.
True, the dogs weren't fenced. But these were people in the country, not the city or suburbs.
Is there enough reasonable doubt to prevent incarcerating two people for the same time as a child molester or violent criminal? This seems harsh to me. It's not as big a stretch as blaming the gun manufacturer when a handgun is used in a crime, but it's not far from it.
For those who condemn the dog breed, you might want to read the following first...
Pit bull attack stats may surprise you
Thursday, July 07, 2005Last week, I received a phone call from someone wanting to know the truth behind pit bull statistics. And, on June 12, in a letter to the editor, a reader wrote about his fear of pit bulls. He said, "These dogs have killed more than 100 individuals in the past five years. If an automobile had a defect that killed 100 people, there would be a public outcry."
After you start looking a little deeper, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.
In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."
Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.
Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.
Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; the reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.
An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.
In the end, many factors contribute to dog attacks. A popular slogan seems to capture the sentiment perfectly, "Judge the Deed Not the Breed."
Be careful. You could go to jail...
Man in jail after shooting dog
Dog shooter won’t do time (though he did plead guilty, paid a fine, and agreed to 100 hours of community service).
“No matter how much I hear about their temperaments being tied to the way they were raised, I still find them unpredictable.”
You are correct! They are completely unpredictable. Read my post #20. Daisy was a well cared for, lovable pet. One day she just snapped and tried to kill the person who loved her the most. Sure, you can make any pet nasty, but this breed has a dark potential, bred deep into it’s genes.
I wonder whatever happened to Mike Tyson’s pet lions? Now,,, there’s an idiotic pet owner.
Bingo. So in the previous list of stupid things idiots might do, should there be jail sentences to rectify liability in those accidents?
I hope you are right that your cats are not killing songbirds. My cats when I was young would kill rats and lay them on the front door mat. If they killed a rabbit or a bird, they would hide under the porch and eat it. A bell is a good idea to reduce the danger to wildlife.
Aren't Pit Bulls MEAN and VICIOUS?
No more vicious than golden retrievers, beagles or other popular dogs! In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%. How did your favorite breed do? See for yourself: ATTS.org
In the ATTS test, a dog is put through a series of confrontational situations. Any sign of panic or aggression leads to failure of the test. The achievement of pit bulls in this study disproves once and for all the old tired belief that pit bulls are inherently aggressive to people.
Like any breed of dog, a healthy pit bull that is properly raised will remain loving and friendly. In the past 20 years, we've seen some sad examples of poorly bred and badly treated dogs that are the byproducts of irresponsible 'backyard breeders' and cruel and abusive homes. These improperly raised, unsocialized creatures can show temperaments far removed from the traditional authentic pit bull. Don't confuse these unfortunate misbreds with the huge majority of well-loved dogs in this country that remain solid in temperament, affectionate, trustworthy and friendly to their dying day.
You should have no problem with a machine gun license then. It's $200 plus registration and tracking for life. I have a problem with that. I favor responsibility such as taking a firearms training course, but privately run, without registration in a federal database. The $200 would pay for a decent training course rather than paying for bureacrats to invade privacy.
The same applies to the dogs. Vicks dogs were trained to kill other dogs, but with rehabbing some were adoptable. The private group that did the rahabbing reviewed the applications for adoption, trained the adopters and checks on their status. What makes that acceptable is it is a private agreement between two responsible private parties. The government has no business meddling in that arrangement unless they can show negligence or abuse.
I have wrens which are even better. When the cats are outside they can go relax wherever they want, hunt mice in the woods, or do other stationary activities. But when they are moving, there is always a wren a few feet away scolding them. They've learned to ignore the wrens and I've never seen them move on a wren. The wrens nest in the propane tank, unreachable and safe from cats.
Rhis little boy was on his OWN farm land.
I thought the article suggested he might have been attacked when he was trying to look at pit bull puppies. This would imply that he was on the owners property. That being said, the puppies should have been in a secure place, and the child should NOT have been trespassing. If the puppies had been birthed on the childs land, then the dog owners should have brought them back to their own property, and the kids parents should have informed the dog owners so they could do so.
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.