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 ...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Therefor no State can pass any law that infringes on something you want to do? Seriously? I have a Constitutional right to do whatever I want? Guess we live in 2 different countries!
If you honestly think the Constitution protects your right to own a particular breed of animal you have absolutely no idea how our system of law works.
I give up, I am obviously not getting through. You tell me to think not feel but then post a bunch of photos which serve no purpose but to elicit an emotional response favorable to your point of view. I wont muck up the thread with photos of mauled children but if you want to balance your previous post, go ahead and google a few. It is horrific.
"If you choose to keep an animal that can, has, and will figure out how to escape it's confines and attack people then there has to be an added responsibility and criminal cost when it happens."As I previously stated, penalties should be severe and the laws enforced strictly. The right to own them should not be denied just because of what you think.
Got a chuckle out of your reply...When I mean business all dogs scatter...But I do love them...My daddy always said to “never own a dog smarter than you are” In all my years I have met a few people that have dogs that are smarter than them and rule the roost as it were....
I love cats also, but live on a busy street and am afraid if I had one and it got out, it would become a frisbee in the middle of the road...
Aggressive animals, aggressive owners. A lab or a German Shepherd doesn’t register high enough on the “ego meter”. No one in the “Hood” is gonna give proper respect to a “homie” who owns a Golden Lab. That’s “white boy stuff” and it invites ridicule. Pits bring respect.
And not to leave this out, but all animals have the potential for maiming/killing. Even the cute and adorable Labs.
Case in point: my grandfather had an absolutely sweet German Shephard. Come feeding time, I had to move the food dish over a bit and put my hand too close and got nipped. No scars, no stitches, just a reminder not to get in the way of chow time.
Puts things in perspective when you realize nature can take over, no matter how well-trained an animal is.
It’s probably about the bite. Springer and Cocker Spaniels are more of a nuisance. The most damage they can do is try to gnaw your ankles off. With a pit, you have more than your ankles to worry about.
valid point..................... :)
shovels and rakes are in the shed....got lucky that time and had just got the shovel out of the shed.....I do keep a 12# sledge hammer in the garage...........
********The thing that amazes me about this thread is how quickly some here give up freedom, and call other people idiots and want to punish them for not being as “smart” as they are. *********
Unfortunately that is the way people react when kids are dying. The pit bull posts always bring out a lot of responses, unfortunately there are a lot of pit bull incidents.
Pit bulls account for less than3- 4% of the dogs in our country. Yet a study from 1979 through 1988 released by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that pit bulls accounted for 42% of all dog-related deaths. Another study conducted in 1982 through 2006 similarly concluded that 44% of all fatalities from dog attacks involved pit bulls. And the numbers are getting worse. The JAMA article reported that in the most recent years of the study (1987-1988), pit bulls accounted for 62% of the deaths. Another study in 2007 found that 58% of all dog bite fatalities involved pit bulls.
Those are pretty condemning statistics.
Now we wouldnt want to take away your right to own a time bomb such as this, but if you feel like betting 7 years of your life in prison because you want a pit bull. Be my guest.
Years back when I was teaching group obedience classes we had several pits (and Am Staffs) come thru classes. Never had a problem with any of them, except they tended to be a little lazy. They were all sweet. Of course back then, we didn’t know we were supposed to be terrified, since the media had not told us to do that yet. Back then it was rotties and dobies (and we did have one rottie come thru class who would growl at other dogs).
Personally, I have met more dals and chows with rotten temperments than any of the so called *protection breeds*. Oh, and cockers. Fortunately they are very small, but they can tend to be quite snappy. Incorrect temperament of course, but lots of the pet cockers out there had very ugly temperaments.
If I own a golden retriever who escapes and kills someone, I certainly should have some responsibility as well. The only dog I’ve ever been bitten by (and I show and have trained and have worked for a vet, so I have spent LOTS of time around dogs both mine and other people’s) was one of MY GOLDENS. She was attacking another of my dogs, and I got in the middle. I was so thankful it was me and not one of my kids or a stranger. And, I had her euthanized that day. She simply was not stable.
You want the government to tell people what kind of dog they may and may not own. It is identical to someone from the nanny state attempting to tell me I can't drive an SUV because they don't like them (true, hasn't happened... yet) and attempting to tell me I can't own a gun because they don't like them (has happened in the past based on the mere appearance of certain guns and appears likely to be happening again).
I'm watching freedoms removed one by one. The government tells us how much water we are allowed to use to flush a toilet.
The government bans the incandescent light bulb.
The government requires everyone to buy a certain efficiency of appliance, even though the payback on the reduced energy usage is two or three times the expected life of the appliance.
The government tells me I can't talk on a cell phone while driving, though I can talk with a passenger, play with the radio, etc. (at least for now).
The government is preparing to limit the production and use of energy.
The government wants to assume total responsibility (i.e., control) of health care.
Enough!
You think these are straw men. I think these are examples of freedoms being removed, which is what this discussion is about... FREEDOM.
Arguing about a breed of dog may sound silly, but it's another choice that's mine to make. Take it away and you remove more freedom.
I get the idea that you're making an entirely different argument, all based on your disdain for a particular breed of dog. You think the breed serves no purpose. Okay. Don't buy one! But don't tell me I can't buy one simply because you don't like them.
Let's argue the breed. You claim an inordinate number of dog attacks are from pit bulls but you do not back up the claim. Want some objective comparisons of the breed? How about the American Temperment Test Society? The link is on an earlier post, but here it is again...
Description of the Temperament Test
The ATTS tested 665 American Pit Bull Terriers and 85.3% passed (Source). That's an objective measure and if you say that Pit Bulls should be banned, then every breed with the same or lower temperment rating should be banned, right?
I own Shetland Sheepdogs. Only 67.4% passed (Source). Are you going to ban Shelties?
The media hypes stories about one particular breed all out of proportion. Want some facts?
Read the Facts and Statistics.
I found the following interesting...
Denver, CO banned pit bull-type dogs a few years back. Yet, the legislation made no impact on the number of pit bull-type dogs landing in the local shelters. It seems bans do hinder responsible pet owners from rescuing good pit bulls. But the bans do nothing to discourage gang bangers who use pit bulls in dog fights. The bans are mostly ignored by recklessly irresponsible owners who have pit bulls as guard dogs or as some sort of misguided macho symbol. All these reasons combined explain why Denver rescinded their pit bull ban this year.
It seems that when Pit Bulls are outlawed, only outlaws have Pit Bulls.
Let's get back to the original argument. The original argument was all about the owners. Should the owners have been given the same sentence given for violent crime or child molestation because of their dogs? There is no evidence that the owners taught the dogs to be aggressive and no evidence that the dogs were aggressive prior to the attack. We don't know the circumstances leading up to the tragic attack. We don't know if there was provocation prior to the attack. We know very little.
We only know that the dogs were not restrained, but the setting was not a city of suburb. It was the country where every home doesn't have a privacy fence, where there are no lease laws, and where dogs are often allowed to run free.
Should the owners get seven years in jail, based on what we know about this case?
If the dogs were Golden Retrievers, which have lower temperment scores than Pit Bulls, would the owners still have received a seven year sentence?
No, my subject was "freedom." Specifically, should the goverment be allowed to tell people what kind of dog they can own? Originally, the argument was about the justice, or lack thereof, in handing out a seven year prison sentence to dog owners based on a tragic accident involving a breed of dog painted as vile and evil by the media. The merit of the breed was a third argument.
I attempted to address all three in the following post...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2223294/posts?page=215#215
Actually, you might be surprised at the damage one of those smaller breeds can do to a child’s face. They may not kill them, but they can leave them permanently disfigured.
It’s really difficult to find bite stats online, probably since most states don’t keep track of anything other than fatal bites or severe maulings. However, this is interesting, altho it only goes thru 2002 and is only for the state of TX:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/idcu/health/zoonosis/animal/bites/summaries/
Note, in 2002 pits WERE number one in bites in TX, however, on back all the way to 1996 they were NOT number one.
I found that web site via this:
http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html
which is an interesting read if anyone wants to read with an open mind.
I don't believe that number. Unfortunately no one really keeps stats of dog numbers by breed (other than AKC which accounts for a small number of the dogs in this country and none of the pit bulls since they are not an AKC breed). Check out your local shelter and animal control. The majority of dogs in shelters in many areas are pits and pit crosses. If the number you cite is true, where did all of those dogs come from?
...BUT you'll never hear "we were incompetent, irresponsible PBT oweners BECAUSE responsible, competent PBT owners DON'T have aggressive dogs!
You probably "cannot understand why" firearms are legal under the 2nd amendment--BLAME THE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS, NOT THE DOGS!
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.