Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When dogs attack, owners can go to prison (Pit bulls kill child - Owners get 7 years)
WFAA-TV ^ | 1/19/2009 | JIM DOUGLAS

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: dogs; pitbull; rdo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-230 next last
To: Always Right

The constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to keep a certain breed of dogs. And, FWIW, I’v enever heard anyone talking about a ban on Giant Schnauzers or Akidas or even Fila Brasileiros even though anyone of these dogs is potentially as dangerous as a pitbull because they aren’t as commonly available or as notorious as pit bulls. That being said, I have always contended that ownership of a pitbull should be regulated at the state level just as much as a handgun. I understand the need for the breed but I think we need to ensure that owners have mandatory liability insurance on the dog and they need to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the ownership laws anually and at the request of neighbors and LE, laws that demonstrate that the owners have positive control over the animal at all times. And I disagree with your “99%” figure.


61 posted on 04/06/2009 8:25:56 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Badabing Badablonde

We owned a half pit bull and half bull dog. He was a wonderful dog and never showed agression to people. Other dogs...that’s a different story.


62 posted on 04/06/2009 8:28:04 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Badabing Badablonde

It’s a valid point that the irresponsible owners will tend towards those breeds. The same can be said, however, for an irresponsible gun owner. The 2nd amendment says “well maintained” which in the language of the day meant both properly equipped and properly trained. There is absolutely no doubt that founders would approve of a battle tank in private possession if that person were suitably and properly trained (e.g. a caretaker of a military museum). The idea that freedom should be limited based on some lowest common denominator of responsibility is an anathema to me. It’s not a leap at all to condition the public from scary dog breeds to scary gun breeds. That notion must be avoided.


63 posted on 04/06/2009 8:29:41 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

I dont know what I would do if I was forced to live somewhere that was violent and unsafe. I just thank the good Lord that so far all I’ve needed is my home security system. I’d hate to have to own a gun or an attack dog.

My cousins owned pit bulls, but only one at a time. They finally switched breeds, not because they were violent, but because they kept getting stolen. The kicker was when they saw their last one — Brutus — going crazy trying to get out of some drug dealer’s cadillac when he saw them on the street close to their house. I dont guess you call the police when a pusher steals your pit bull.


64 posted on 04/06/2009 8:30:22 AM PDT by Badabing Badablonde (New to the internet? CLICK HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RC one
The constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to keep a certain breed of dogs.

Wow! And what does the Constitution do? It provides limited powers to the federal government. And unless owning a pit bull involves interstate commerce, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to get be involved in this issue.

65 posted on 04/06/2009 8:31:07 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

My sister has a jack-rat, people moved in next door to her that breed pits. The pits have come over and under the fence into her yards and attacked her dog once, but she was able to stop it before too much damage was done. There is nothing she can do about it. So now, my sister owned her house first, but can’t even let her little dog in it’s own backyard because of the idiots next door.


66 posted on 04/06/2009 8:31:57 AM PDT by old and cranky (You! Out Of The Gene Pool - Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RC one
And, FWIW, I’v enever heard anyone talking about a ban on Giant Schnauzers or Akidas or even Fila Brasileiros

And when the government took over the banks, there wasn't anyone talking about the government taking over the auto industry....

67 posted on 04/06/2009 8:33:40 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: palmer

“The primary risk is the owner, not the dog.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with you as I am of the “Good Owner, Great Dog” philosophy. However, there is a clear difference in breeds and liability/risk with each breed. I chose to own a lab, which carries a risk of jumping on people and knocking them to the ground causing injury. I worked very hard to train this behaviour out of mine and am only partially confident in that training. As a result, I know to shorten her leash if people approach.

I would not have that risk if I had decided on a bijon (sp?). I would instead have a potential risk of that smaller dog burrowing into my neighbor’s yard and damaging their flower beds. If I had decided on a Pit, then I would have different risks to worry about than with my lab’s jumping problem.....

I just have a hard time understanding why any person would chose the potential risks associated with owning a pit, or a rott. I am not advocating that any breed be banned, but I am advocating that the owners be willing to assume any responsibility for damage caused by the known risks with any breed.

These particular owners don’t seem to understand this concept.


68 posted on 04/06/2009 8:34:25 AM PDT by CSM (Smokers, the most patriotic of Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Reduction of risk would be to pick a breed with less problems and train the individual dog to get along with people. Likelihood and impact are the two areas in risk reduction that you base your mitigation strategy on. It is more likely that a pit bull will attack a person based on statistics and it if a pit bull does attack the impact is greater than if another dog attacks, well maybe not a Doberman or Rottweiler, but this is why insurance companies charge much more on Homeowners insurance if you have these dogs. Maybe people should be required by law to carry sufficient insurance to cover the risk of these dogs. Then they would be more careful in their selection and care of them.
69 posted on 04/06/2009 8:34:52 AM PDT by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

“They are HIGHLY unpredictable and aggressive due to genetic damage.”

That’s the tragic part of all this. Pit bulls weren’t always known to be a vicious breed, but these damn puppy mill operators and other illicit breeders churn them out with no regard to temperament, health, etc. THEY need to start having some penalties come down on them, too.


70 posted on 04/06/2009 8:34:58 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Meanwhile, the sheeple graze mindlessly while awaiting slaughter at Hope and Change Ranch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Thanks for your comments. All very reasonable thoughts.

But I still think that all pit bulls should have all of their teeth pulled. ;-)


71 posted on 04/06/2009 8:35:01 AM PDT by Badabing Badablonde (New to the internet? CLICK HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dhm914; palmer; All

After my father died, I was staying at a duplex he owned in the country. The renters in the other half were young and irresponsible. They had a cat which ran loose and was not fed very well. Almost every day it killed a songbird, chipmunk or the like. I was angry, but couldn’t really blame the hungry cat. Cats should not run loose except where they are needed to keep rats under control


72 posted on 04/06/2009 8:35:19 AM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
You punish the irresponsible. The gun grabbers you speak of have a tendency to present offenders as victims, and are loath to hold them to account. To them guilt is collective, if it exists at all. Just like this woman's excuse: 'Everybody's dog runs loose around here'. Guns don't run loose. They're just pieces of metal. But if 'Everybody shoots at signs out of car windows around here', is used as an exculpation for someones death, then I would see a freedom that's being abused, to the hazard of the responsible citizen; his person and his freedom.
73 posted on 04/06/2009 8:37:03 AM PDT by Skid Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Your “ban all Pitbulls” logic sounds just like the leftists argument for banning firearms. Stop hating the breed because of irresponsible owners. My prayers for the family that lost their child.


74 posted on 04/06/2009 8:37:07 AM PDT by rd1tx (Peace through superior firepower. (U.S. Army))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

If the insurance premium is charged based on measurable risks, I would agree. That means, for example, measuring the history of the owner and their risk factors, not just the breed.


75 posted on 04/06/2009 8:41:15 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jdege
because it's not the dog that is the problem, it's the way the idiots are raising them.

Beg to differ. Against my advice, my son got a pit bull puppy. He had four girls at the time aged 5, 2, 1, and 1 (twins). My question to him at the time was "Just how many spare daughters do you have?"

One day when the pup was about 10 months old he put the two year old's head in his mouth and was clamping down. Her mother responded to the screams and disengaged the dog and gave first aid to the cuts. Later when my son got home he and the dog made a one-way trip to the woods.

What's really sad is that now he won't have any dog in the house and the kids are missing out on just how much companionship a good dog can bring to the family.

76 posted on 04/06/2009 8:41:34 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

You didn’t miss anything. I felt the same way when I heard that comment.


77 posted on 04/06/2009 8:44:09 AM PDT by mickidawn1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RC one; All

Perhaps owners of larger breeds should be required to take a licensing test indicating knowledge of law, and dog care and that of other critters. They should also perhaps be required to have some kind of liability insurance. This goes also for chimps, lions, tigers and other large pets, as well as poison snakes, constrictors, alligators and the like. The fee could help defray the cost to the municipality of these large dogs and other creatures.


78 posted on 04/06/2009 8:44:26 AM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: old and cranky

Dogs are incredibly smart and they will figure a way to get out. If people walk them regularly they probably are less apt to want to run away. They probably want freedom like anyone else except Obama voters who want to be wards of the state.


79 posted on 04/06/2009 8:48:41 AM PDT by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Yes, it is. From a link on the page you cited:
The breeds most likely to kill

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

To learn more about dog attacks, see Why dogs bite people To learn about how to take some of the bite out of the dog bite epidemic, see Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.


80 posted on 04/06/2009 8:48:48 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-230 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson