Dog pack murder: California dog owner charged with murder after mauling attack

[ErikJ]

Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Dog pack murder: California dog owner charged with murder after mauling attack


Alex Jackson, 29, was arrested and charged with the murder of Pamela Devitt, a 63-year-old resident of Littlerock, Calif., KABC-TV reported Thursday.

Devitt was walking home earlier this month when a pack of pit bulls attacked her and bit her to death. Authorities said that Devitt received 150 to 200 puncture wounds from the fatal mauling.

On the same day of the attack, authorities investigated Jackson's home, where detectives said four of his eight dogs seemed to have blood on their fur and muzzles.

After DNA tests matched Devitt's blood to the blood on the dogs' fur, police charged Jackson with murder.

Devitt's husband, Benjamin, told NBC Los Angeles that he didn't blame the dogs. He blamed the owner.

"You get caught up in somebody else's irresponsibility and these kinds of tragic, devastating things happen," Devitt said.

Jackson faces life in prison if convicted. According to NBC Los Angeles, local officials said they couldn't remember a similar murder charge involving a dog attack in the last 10 years.

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/30/Dog-pack-murder-California-dog-owner-charged-with-murder-after-mauling-attack/3061369956319/

[JI7]

1. good

[ruffburr]

2. +1 IT'S NOT THE ANIMALS IT'S HOW THEY WERE RAISED!

[baldguy]

3. Blaming all Pit Bulls for every dog attack is a lot like blaming all Muslims for all terrorism.

or blaming all black people for all crime.

It's already been established that the owner of these dogs in a drug dealer who abused the dogs & trained them to attack people to defend his operation, and there's no DNA proof that they've actual Pit Bulls anyway. They have no connection to the 10,000,000 other Pit Bulls in the country who are properly trained & socialized, and which have loving relationships as a part of 10,000,000 human families.

There is little correlation between visual breed identification and the DNA of mixed-breed dogs.

[Orrex]

12. Tell us exactly what identifies a certain DNA sample as pit bull DNA

I don't doubt that you have this information readily at hand, because I know that you hate nothing more than stupid people who are ignorant about pit bulls. Please share your profound wisdom and let us know which genetic markers specifically and unambiguously identify a dog as a pit bull.

Thanks!

[baldguy]

30. Searching a dogs DNA in order to identify the breed only makes sense

If you're trying to blame the breed. Blaming an entire breed for the actions of an individual dog - and the actions of the dog's owner - does not make sense.

How many times does it have to be said: THE BREED DOESN'T MATTER!!

Blaming the breed is an ignorant & simplistic approach that flies in the face of all the current scientific data, and ignores the actual causes of canine aggression: Whether the dog is spayed/neutered, whether the dog has been properly trained & socialized, and whether the dog has been treated properly, not neglected or abused and with no rehabilitation.

There are about 200,000,000 dogs in the US, and about 1,000,000 dog bites require hospitalization every year (0.5% incidence), and 30 dog bite related fatalities (0.000015% incidence), with no single breed being predominant. If someone has been trying to breed murderous bloodthirsty behavior into the genetic makeup of Canis lupus familiaris, they've done a pretty sucky job of it.

[Orrex]

35. So you don't actually have that information?

In other words, your long-standing complaint that pit bulls are misidentified is, in fact, insupportable, since you yourself can't identify them conclusively. Are you going to abandon that red herring?


Does a typical bite by a chihuahua inflict the same injury as a typical bite by a pit bull? If not, then it's entirely appropriate to treat the breeds differently.

[baldguy]

47. Are you a geneticist or a biochemist? NO? I didn't think so.

Meanwhile I'll look to the people who are, and the people who are real animal behaviorists, the organizations who sponsor the necessary studies the media ignores, and all the national institutions that know the relevant law, medicine & canine behavior that oppose the idea blaming the breed: the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Kennel Club, and the American Bar Association.

My long standing complaint is that stupid, lazy people (like you) who look for easy solutions to complex problems are driving the debate & ignoring the real determinative causes of dog aggression: Whether the dog is spayed/neutered, whether the dog has been properly trained & socialized, and whether the dog has been treated properly, not neglected or abused and with no rehabilitation.

[Orrex]

58. You have a fucked up, kneejerk habit of calling people stupid and ignorant

It's rather like the attack-first attitude seen so commonly in pit bulls. No wonder you're so protective of that aggressive, violent breed; your first inclination is to bite bite bite.


You're the one who's been barking incessantly about false breed identification. Give us the criteria by which pit bulls can be conclusively and unambiguously identified.

Until then, you continue to be simply a rabid pit bull fetishist.

[baldguy]

82. You're losing the thread of your argument. I've said all along the breed doesn't matter.

And I've supplied supporting documentation to prove it.

The facts are:

1) Media reports will always claim a mixed breed dog that bites is a Pit Bull, no matter what it looks like or what it's parents were.

2) I've repeatedly shown that media reports are not accurate, and the best that can be said for most dogs without a pedigree is that they're a mixed breed.

3) I've repeatedly provided links to show that using visual breed identification to attempt to identify the predominant breed of mixed breed dogs is no better than random chance. The DNA tests merely provide proof of that. And if you can't identify the breed, your argument falls apart.

4) I've also repeatedly provided links to show that while breed is not a determinative factor in dog aggression, the way the dog is trained, the amount of socialization, and whether the dogs has been spayed or neutered are determinative factors. These - as usual - are totally ignored by the original source for the OP, the author of the OP, you, and EVERY OTHER ANTI-DOG POST IN THIS THREAD!

[magical thyme]

53. the red herring is trying to blame the dogs instead of the people

who breed badly, who train for aggression, who have more dogs than they can handle, who let their dogs run loose, abuse, neglect, etc.

Obviously the bite of a large dog does more damage than the bite of a small dog. And dogs running loose in packs are potentially lethal.

But no dog should be bred for aggression, trained to attack, abused, neglected, un-neutered, un-licensed, un-vaccinated, etc. Period.

My neighbor's tiny terriers ran loose constantly, in my garden trying to bite my ankles and hands...while he slept, drunk across the street.

It's true that their bites were not likely to cause me to bleed to death. But his neglect meant they probably weren't vaccinated for rabies, either, so yes, they actually could have killed me.

So yes, the bite from a neglected chihuahua could kill.

[Orrex]

65. All else being equal, a pit bull bite is worse than a chihuahua bite

Your hypothetical rabid chihuahua might indeed deliver a bite that is ultimately more deadly than that of a healthy pit bull, but that's hardly the point. We're discussing the relative danger of (and damage from) the bite itself. By that measure, the pit bull has a bite that is undeniably more dangerous.

Sure, you might contract rabies from a chihuahua bite. You might also be bitten by a chihuahua while standing atop a tall ladder and thereupon fall to your death. That doesn't address the lethality of the bite itself, though.

But no dog should be bred for aggression, trained to attack, abused, neglected, un-neutered, un-licensed, un-vaccinated, etc. Period.

Fine, but let's not pretend the the bite from an aggressive Pomeranian is the same as a bite from an aggressive pit bull. All dogs are not bred equal.

[CokeMachine]

71. You had to bring Pomeranians up!!

Mine is staring at me and I'm afraid he might attack. I think I'll give him a snack to stay on his good side.

[Orrex]

73. You'd better feed him quick!

I hear that they're deadlier than pit bulls!

[CokeMachine]

75. It depends.

He looks like a Pomeranian but maybe he is a pit bull. How do I know without proper DNA testing.

Have a good weekend!!

[dsc]

92. I have a mutt who most certainly isn't a pit bull so I don't have a dog in that fight

but I can absolutely tell you that every vet I have had since I had him as said that if I wanted to know his make up I could have him tested to find it. Do I know the markers, no? Any more than I know what cholesterol looks like in a blood sample, but in both cases I trust the professionals who say they do.

[Orrex]

94. Actually, that kind of supports my point

Your doctor doesn't say "your cholesterol is one point below the danger zone, so you're fine." It's a gradient, ranging from minimal risk to high risk, and in any case your doctor will likely issue a general precaution re: cholesterol.

The same should be true of pit bulls. Examples of 100% pure pit bull are, I suspect, extremely rare, so there's no point in saying "a dog that's 100% pit bull requires special regulation." Instead, it is fitting to restrict based on the characteristics, traits and behaviors associated with pit bull-type dogs.


Additionally, my objection is appropriate because the person who repeatedly posts those "find the pit bull" games is calling for exactly the sort of genetic specificity that you identify as the territory of the professionals. If it's fair to hold one side to that standard, it's fair to apply it to the other side as well.

[CokeMachine]

69. Here let me fix that for you.

Blaming all gun owners for every gun crime is a lot like blaming all Pit Bulls for all fatal maulings.

You are Welcome!!

[gcomeau]

77. Umm, no.

You are comparing owners to the thing owned. Your analogy is simply invalid. Let ME fix that for YOU.


Blaming all gun owners for every gun crime is a lot like blaming all Pit Bull OWNERS for all fatal maulings.


There, now it's valid.

Of course people don't blame all gun owners for gun crime, so the analogy is also pointless... they blame gun policy in the US that allows hundreds of millions of deadly weapons to flood the streets under laughably uncontrolled conditions, and anyone who supports allowing that situation to continue because they like to play with their shiny toys more than they give a crap about thousands of dead fellow citizens.

[CokeMachine]

78. Thanks for the correction.

As for the rest -- it's your point of view and you are welcome to it. You may want to read a few gun threads where some posters do blame all gun owners for all gun crime. The poster I responded to above is a prime example.

Take Care and have a good weekend

[baldguy]

81. Talk to me again when gun owners stop campaigning against laws which encourage gun safety.

[CokeMachine]

83. Maybe you could share some of the "gun safety" laws that are campaigned against?

Maybe our definitions of "gun safety" is the sticking point You have the same attitude about guns as I do about Pit Bulls. If it will save only one life then pass laws to control the owners. Your pit bulls harm no one, my gun harms no one. Pit bulls are dangerous in the wrong hands and so are guns. Are we on the same page?

[baldguy]

84. Start with universal background checks.

Then you can ask your buddies at the NRA what else they don't want.

[CokeMachine]

87. I support the extended BG checks as do most gun owners.

The NRA is a pile of stinking shit that didn't even represent their membership on the Extended BG checks. C'mon you can do better than that. I'm also in favor of extended BG checks for anyone owning a Pit Bull. If you're banned from owning one type of dangerous weapon then you should be banned from all dangerous weapons.

Have a great weekend!!

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Good Part Deux

I was in the middle of writing a response when the Hall Monitor, er, Host, locked the thread. I WAS SAYING . . . One of my new neighbors two doors down has a pit bull that he sometimes walks off-leash. Now, across the street is a nice, young Hmong family with several small children and, because the Hmong are close-knit family-wise they often have lots of cousins visiting and they congregate in the front yard. One of these days I can foresee the possibility of a real tragedy. One day while assbite neighbor was walking Penis Extender, I yelled out my kitchen window, "You need to put a leash on your dog" at which point he shouted back, "He don't hurt nobody." <cringe> Today, I was walking to the post office and said asshole was walking said penis extender, this time ON the leash (thank goddess) and said penis extender was STRAINING at the leash to get at me. Yeah, I can tell, "He don't hurt nobody" by the way he's straining at the leash. I used to enjoy walking in my neighborhood. Now I'm going to have to add a cane and a can of pepper spray to my walks. Joy.

[alittlelark]

7. Scary situation... I'd pre-emptively contact animal control.

[alittlelark]

8. I'd add that a golf club (driver best) is better than a cane

Works as well as a cane for walking, and is a better weapon..... Oh, and it looks classy!

[Le Taz Hot]

9. Now that's a good idea

and I've seen them at thrift stores. Not that I'd know a driver from a, well, another type of golf club but I can see where it would pack more whollup if the situation required it.

[alittlelark]

11. They have a big wooden head generally.

My dad uses one that he screwed a piece of rubber to the bottom of (it's wood), and uses as a cane and for canine defense.

PS - he was Jr PGA in college and just likes to have a club.

It does look classy and ppl stop him to chat.

[rl6214]

15. A good hefty mallet putter would work as well

And not be quite so long.

[Orrex]

13. Before you get mauled, you need to have that penis extender's DNA tested

Because nothing is more tragic than misidentifying a pit bull when in fact it's only 75% pit bull.

[flvegan]

20. Are you suggesting that having a pit bull is nothing more than a "penis extender" Orrex?

[Orrex]

25. Simply using the terminology of the post to which I replied

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022924665#post4

[Le Taz Hot]

23. Oh, ffs.

Yeah, Animal Control can run all the DNA tests they want once it's dead. ORRRRR said neighbor COULD keep his penis extender on leash. Now there's an idea!

[baldguy]

31. Find the Pit Bull.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022881621

[Orrex]

44. Tell us which DNA markers will conclusively and unambiguously identify a pit bull

Until you do, you have no basis for objecting when other people don't identify pit bulls according to the same arbitrary and elastic standards that you use.

[baldguy]

49. Show me your degree in biochemistry.

Until then you're just a fool being argumentative.

[Orrex]

57. Nope, try again

You're the one who's been barking incessantly about false breed identification. Give us the criteria by which pit bulls can be conclusively and unambiguously identified.

Until then, you continue to be simply a rabid pit bull fetishist.

[Occulus]

89. Why are you defeating your own argument?

I don't get it- if you can't conclusively identify a pit bull based on appearance OR upon DNA, BSL legislation is good?

Makes no sense at all. If you can't ID them, you can't honestly support breed-specific legislation. You have to know, after all, which is which to do that, and you've repeatedly implied that you can't tell from DNA or appearance.

So what exactly is your point?

[Orrex]

91. Cuts both ways

The complaint is routinely made that pit bulls are misidentified, yet people profess to love pit bulls and/or own them. How can they be so sure? Why is it okay for them to generalize wildly about the breed, while people who argue in favor of breed restriction are held to a laser-precise standard? A standard that pit bull advocates themselves can't articulate, let alone meet?

What I'm arguing is that I'm fine with a restriction on pit bull-type dogs, meaning dogs that generally display the traits, behaviors or characteristics commonly associated with pit bulls.

Every time a pit bull advocate offers up a "spot the pit bull" post, they're tarring themselves with the same brush, since they can't identify them either.

They're arguing that, since we can't identify dangerous pit bulls with 100% precision, we shouldn't restrict the breed at all (in part by clinging to the falsehood that all breeds are equally dangerous). Instead, since pit bulls can't be identified with 100% precision, it's okay to enforce a more general restriction on the breed in question and substantially similar dogs.

[baldguy]

98. You want to restrict Pit Bulls, but you have no reasonable definition of what a Pit Bull is.

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

And it doesn't "cut both ways" because you obsess over a breed of dog when the breed doesn't matter. Any breed or type of dog can be aggressive & cause injuries. What prevent that from happening is properly training the dog, properly socializing the dog, and making sure the dog has been spayed or neutered - the things which you ignore entirely.

You position is nonsensical. It's exactly like being worried about speeding cars, then restricting them based on their color - while you're unconcerned that the driver may have a history of speeding.

Worse then that, since you're so hung up on what a dog looks like rather than how it's owner has trained it & treated it, and how the dog behaves, your restrictions would do nothing to control dogs who actually are dangerous. If it was up to you, more people would be hurt & killed, the irresponsible dog owners would not be punished, more dogs would get neglected & abused, more innocent dogs would be put to death, all the while you would punish dog owners who are being responsible. And guess what? That's exactly what happens when BSLs are enacted.

[Orrex]

101. You repeatedly misrepresent my position

I have called repeatedly for heavy penalties upon the owners of dogs that attack people; I have in fact argued that the owners should face the same punishment as if they themselves had inflicted the injuries, so your claim that "more irresponsoble dog owners would go unpunished" if it were up to me is false.

You didn't hop on board the "get 'em neutered" bandwagon, at least not vocally, ubtil yesterday, so you're in no position to lecture me on it. Neither have I argued against it, because it sounds like a great idea. Not sure why you're bringing it up here.

You are also using a strawman when you point out that any breed or type of dog can be aggressive and cause injury, because absolutely no one has claimed otherwise. It is true, however, that certain types of dogs can more readily inflict much greater damage than others, and it is entirely appropriate to restrict these dogs as a result. A tabby can inflict injury, and so can a lion; by your argument we should regulate them equally.

Finally, your analogy about curtailing speeding by regulating cars is inaccurate. You claim that I urge restriction based on arbitrary and insignificant traits, which is false. Instead, I'm arguing for regulation based on the characteristics that specifically make a dog more dangerous, many of which are embodied in pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs. If your analogy were correct, then I would be arguing for restriction based upon coat color and tail fluffiness.

You seem to think that I'm attacking pit bulls out of pure bigotry, but that's simply not the case. If you can point me to the many threads started by poodle advocates who feel that their dogs are wrongly identified as vicious and dangerous, I will be happy to take the matter up with them.

[Orrex]

108. And every post that you offer likewise confirms you as a dedicated pit bull fetishist

You're going out of your mind because I won't join your cult, and--as always--you attack with aggressiveness grossly disproportionate to circumstances, much like the dogs you worship.

Sure, you have moments of lucidity, when it seems that you might actually be able to engage the topic like a rational human being, but as soon as you encounter someone who disagrees with you, it's right back to full-on attack mode.


Down, boy!

[KurtNYC]

62. You tell me which one of those dogs has its testicles attached and I'll tell you which

one is most likely to be aggressive.

"Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered"

http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html

[baldguy]

79. THANK YOU!

All the media reports about dog bites that focus on what the damn dog looks like instead of how it was treated, and if it's been fixed or not ignore the reasons that make dogs bite in the first place.

[Heywood J]

33. I believe that post was intended to be sarcastic.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. I'm familiar with the poster

and his raison d'etre.

[Orrex]

42. Mmm... Raisins.

[Heywood J]

111. OK. (NT)

[Kolesar]

28. Carry a dog biscuit

or maybe a stale Clif bar you found in the back of the cupboard.
You have a right to be scared of your "new neighbor". The neighborhood I grew up in had uncontrolled dogs and they scared the hell out of me when I was four feet tall.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. Yes. Instead of whacking it with a golf club, give it a treat and make a friend of it for its life.

They only appear vicious to you because that's how you see them. 99.999 percent of the time they are big puppies that want to be pet and given treats.

[Kolesar]

72. I got bit by a dalmation when I was walking back from the library

The owner could no control her overly energetic dog as she was walking it down the street and as I walked by it bit me. It did not penetrate my leather jacket, so I walked on .

[narnian60]

68. Thank you for being assertive enough to yell out

to this guy the need for a leash. So many of us THINK about doing this but don't have the guts.

[marions ghost]

5. Good

If you own dangerous animals that will kill humans, they have to be treated like weapons.

[flvegan]

21. So then, children.

I'm going to stipulate here that "will" should be "can" for those that can't frame it properly.

[marions ghost]

24. oooooo......

split those hairs. You forgot the spank smilie.

The breed "can and will" kill again. Better?

My point: These dogs can be lethal weapons in the wrong hands, and there are a lot of wrong hands. Just like when guns get away from their owners, vicious dogs of any breed that get away from their owners and injure & kill--should ensure that the owners get plenty of jail time. You have to stop it somehow.

[baldguy]

32. Find the Pit Bull.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022881621

[marions ghost]

34. The owners of pit bulls

know they own pit bulls.

And your point is....?

[baldguy]

37. The point is that people who blame Pit Bulls for all dog bite deaths don't know what a Pit Bull is.

And deliberately ignore the real reasons dogs become aggressive.

[marions ghost]

40. People gonna categorize

especially when pit bull attacks are four times as frequent as the nearest competitor (Rottweiler).

Of course this has to do with the fact that pits are cheap and used as guard dogs, and the whole bad breeding and raising issue is involved. Not the dogs' "fault." Of course not.

Stats are stats. And the attacks are horrific. There is a problem. I say prosecute the owners to the max if their animal (any breed) attacks anyone--that would be the best way to handle it. It would motivate owners to realize their responsibility.

Meanwhile I will not be adopting any pit bulls. I'd rather have a shepherd any day. Raised right, they are much less likely to go in for the kill.

[baldguy]

43. It's simply not true that Pit Bull attacks are more common! You're spreading lies that harm dogs.

The media always identifies dogs by the way they look, and unless there's documentary evidence that's literally no better than flipping a coin. Even dog experts usually can't properly identify the predominant breed of mixed breed dog.

What needs to be done is for the media to identify the real reasons for dog aggression: Whether the dog is spayed/neutered, whether the dog has been properly trained & socialized, and whether the dog has been treated properly, not neglected or abused and with no rehabilitation.

There are about 200,000,000 dogs in the US, and about 1,000,000 dog bites require hospitalization every year (0.5% incidence), and 30 dog bite related fatalities (0.000015% incidence), with no single breed being predominant. If someone has been trying to breed murderous bloodthirsty behavior into the genetic makeup of Canis lupus familiaris, they've done a pretty sucky job of it.

[marions ghost]

54. This analysis says pit bull attacks are 4X more common:

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf

-------------

My points:

1. Prosecute the owners of all dogs who injure or kill. If a person is killed, it's homicide.

2. Your list of points the media should educate the public about would be a good effort, but does not put enough pressure on owners to assume responsibility before an attack takes place.

3. People need to know that pit bulls can be especially aggressive (along with about 6 other breeds--we all know what they are) --but at present they are attacking more often than others, likely because of their easy availability and the tendency to use them for small guard dogs. Bad breeding & bad raising also. When somebody gets killed, it's too late to wonder why. The more these stories come out in the news, the more owners might think about what they're doing when they adopt pits and let them run free.

I think my position is reasonable and I'll continue to say so.

[baldguy]

60. The Merritt Clifton report is biased, incomplete & innaccurate. This has been proven repeatedly.

It's not based on any real research, just his summary of a NEXUS search for media reports of dog attacks. There's no attempt to confirm the breed identification, the assumed breed is done only through visual means & visual breed identification is unreliable, there's no allowance made for the severity of the attack, dogs that are deemed to be a threat but have attacked no one are included & are given equal weight to those that have attacked people, attacks that result in no injuries are also giving equal weight to thise that require hospitalization, all Pit Bull mixes are counted as Pit Bulls, but other mixed breeds aren't identified as such, he only counts attacks that are promoted in the media (out of an est 4.7 million dog bites, of which an est 800,000 require hospitalization per the CDC, Merritt Clifton picks out ~4000), and attacks which are blamed on Pit Bulls get 1000x more media attention than those that are not.

The Merritt Clifton report is a joke. Or, it would be if it didn't cause so much harm to dogs & by extension, people. By posting it in defense of your position you're helping to promote false information and helping make problems with dog aggression worse.

If you do nothing but concentrate on the breed, you ignore the real reasons dogs bite people: Whether the dog is spayed/neutered, whether the dog has been properly trained & socialized, and whether the dog has been treated properly, not neglected or abused and with no rehabilitation. The breed does not matter.

[marions ghost]

67. You ignore my point completely

which is--prosecute all owners whose dog gets loose and injures or kills. People who own pits and the other breeds high on the list know who they are. I think people give pits too much leeway, whereas they know they have to control rotts and shepherds and dobermans, etc. (And you really shouldnt let any dog run all over the neighborhood). Owners are too casual about pits and let them loose when they should not. I'm calling for more responsibility and I will keep on doing that. Your defense of pits against all reason is not a help to the situation.

We need penalties that are more severe for ALL dog attacks--or any animal attack that occurs when an owner is negligent. No, pits aren't alone so maybe if we can get attention to the issues through them, we can get more attention to the human victims of all dog attacks.

Cya

[baldguy]

80. Stop making your assumptons based on a "report" that's full of shit.

You're focusing on Pit Bulls & trying to pigeonhole them as an "aggressive breed" when they're no more aggressive than any other dog.

[marions ghost]

88. Several breeds can be dangerous to the public

and should not be loose in public except on a leash (and muzzled--in the case of the pit bull, due to the locking jaw structure). Then if a pit bull mauls and kills someone, the owner does prison time for manslaughter. That's really all that needs to happen. No point in banning them.

Let's leave it here.

[baldguy]

90. If you're stupid enough to believe that myth, you've no business commenting about Pit Bulls.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

[marions ghost]

99. I'll continue to comment about pit bulls

no matter how many insults you throw out. You'll continue to ignore my saying that all dogs (or any animals) that can kill people should be controlled (ie. muzzles, not banning) and the owners prosecuted for manslaughter if they do attack and kill. That's the point. You ignore my point and do your cause no good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-UiRXaahgiI

[baldguy]

103. Pit Bulls don't have locking jaws. They can't fly or become invisible either.

Your profound ignorance of the subject adds nothing to this discussion.

[marions ghost]

104. Your profound hostility adds nothing

muzzle all dangerous dogs in public. And owenrs know they have dogs that might bite. And they take responsibility.

I have said all dogs continually. You just need somebody to latch onto with your locking jaws.

Cya

[Orrex]

66. You don't know what you're talking about

Any data that shows pit bulls to be more dangerous is automatically false, while any data that shows pit bulls to be less dangerous is automatically true.


At least, that's the contention across many threads over the past few weeks.

[marions ghost]

70. I think you mean to reply to post #60 by baldguy

[Orrex]

45. Tell us which DNA markers will conclusively and unambiguously identify a pit bull

Until you do, you have no basis for objecting when other people don't identify pit bulls according to the same arbitrary and elastic standards that you use.

[baldguy]

50. Show me your degree in biochemistry.

Until then you're just a fool being argumentative.

[Orrex]

59. Nope, try again.

You're the one who's been barking incessantly about false breed identification. Give us the criteria by which pit bulls can be conclusively and unambiguously identified.

Until then, you continue to be simply a rabid pit bull fetishist.

[Soundman]

106. Totally correct!

I also notice there has been no reply. Reminds me of any desperate defender, ANY study or statistic that backs up their misguided claim is held on to like a mother holds onto her newborn child.

[patrice]

76. +1

[alittlelark]

6. About F'ing time... the OWNERS need culpability.

The breed is not inherently bad, but the owners oftentimes seem to be.

That said - my Effie is 1/2 pit bull.

[hamsterjill]

46. Exactly. The owners!

No, the breed is not inherently bad, but when someone makes the decision to own a pit bull, there are certain responsibilities that go along with that, including but not limited to, teaching the dog what is and is not acceptable behavior.

I look at it this way: If someone owns a chihuahua, then when they go down to their local Petsmart to buy dog food, they do NOT buy large breed kibble. Because you tailor your purchase to the needs of the specific animal.

So if someone chooses to own a pit bull, then they have the responsibility to tailor their actions to the needs of that specific animal. Large dogs need space to move, they need an area to exercise, they need the owner to be the "alpha" and they need to be responsibly controlled so that they do not disturb or injure anyone else. It's an undeniable fact that, given the potential, a pit bull has the ability to inflict more damage than a chihuahua. And while no chihuahua needs to be biting anyone either, I think my point is made.

I have people who live next door to me who have a tiny back yard and two large pit bulls. The dogs are becoming increasingly frustrated because they don't have enough area. They bark constantly. They pace. The bite on the fence. If the owners were responsible, they would be taking these dogs out on long walks and/or runs. But these dogs NEVER leave that tiny back yard. It's fine to have a tiny back yard as long as you supplement their physical activity by taking the dogs out. But these idiots never do that. This is a case where the owners are not meeting the needs of the animals that they choose to have.

[rl6214]

14. I think owning 8 dogs is a little excessive

I'm good with two or three dogs but more than that is too many. I'm going to pick up my new GSD tomorrow, my 2nd.

[The Straight Story]

16. We should only have single shot dogs or a 5 clip max for owners

Imagine have to reload by getting a baby pit bull, training it, then letting it loose

[rl6214]

18. Maybe have some teeth pulled

No hi capacity jaws. Limit them to 7 teeth per pit.

[The Straight Story]

19. And make some cosmetic changes. Trim their nails not their tails. Makes me feel safer already

[baldguy]

86. "Protect your Dog from Breed Specific Legislation!"

http://www.attackchi.org.au/

Are you sick of people looking at your breed of dog in fear because politicians and the media are saying things like;
"We want to breed these dogs out of existence".

Well worry no longer, AttackChi will be making disguises for all the so called "dangerous" breeds.

These disguise kits are a response to Breed Specific Legislation (BSL).


What a lovely dog!

Other happy customers, please send your pictures!

[Honeycombe8]

17. Yeah. You don't own 8 pit bulls unless...

you're fighting them, or you're breeding them as fighters. He was charged w/murder, I suspect, because there's a history there, or they know he was fighting them. There's a dog limit in my city, no matter the breed. It's 4 or 5 dogs, I think.

[savalez]

64. I beleive that area has a max 3 dog law.

[Sunlei]

97. think what happens many times is people get a pair and have a litter, keep many pups.

those kind of dog packs, never seperated, kept in the yard, get so out of control.

[rl6214]

119. Agreed.

[olddots]

22. there is a disconect in this story

A few weeks ago in DU this story from another source said the woman was jogging in the woods by herself then hinted that Jackson had a bunch of attack dogs guarding his land for some shifty reasons ( pot growing ) maybe

You people here are better at back tracking a story here on DU -- maybe it would be a good idea before this becomes Pitt Bull fury # ?

Something is fishy with this story unfolding .

[LisaL]

26. I don't follow you.

What's the disconnect?

[LWolf]

39. I doubt he's growing pot in littlerock.

There are no woods. It's the Mojave Desert. I used to live, and hike, and ride there.

Maybe a meth lab; there are plenty of those.

I used to have trouble with a pack of dogs; not pits, and not guarding someone's property. They were feral. It was a prime dumping ground for people who couldn't be bothered to take their dog to a shelter. I rounded up and took plenty to the shelter, kept more than one, put them in lost & found, etc.. Most dumped dogs died of dehydration or coyote attack pretty quickly. Those that figured out how to survive became a pack, as part of that survival.

I wonder how the reporter identified the dog breed. Did they do a breed dna test, or is it just another of those "looks like a pit" things?

[hamsterjill]

48. You people????

I had to laugh...

Sorry, just giving you a hard time.

[yellowwoodII]

27. This is appropriate

Good

[Dash87]

29. A guess - another "badass" who only had the pitbulls as a macho thing.

[Shankapotomus]

36. One has to wonder

how many vicious dog owners (not necessarily this one) intentionally use these dogs to get away with murder or even offing an unwanted child. If your dog did the crime, it implies you usually will get a lighter sentence.

One also has to wonder what the implications this case sets for parents of child killers, since they are usually regarded as responsible for their children.

[Sunlei]

41. good thing the police who shot at the pack followed them home

was this the man who had a potfarm in his yard aswell?

people who have packs of dogs in their crappy fenced yards are responsable for their animals who escape.

Over the past year, I've had packs of stray dogs pass by my property some who dug under my fences chased my horse and killed a bunch of my hens. A couple of little dogs a jack russel and a dachund, both unneutered males dug under fence because I had a female dog in heat on property. Both those dogs were tagged and I was able to locate the owners.
People have to contain their dogs better, neuter those male dogs so they don't wander. Don't hoard packs of dogs like they are rose bushes, its to dangerous.

[roody]

93. Please get your dog spayed.

[Sunlei]

96. good point, was done soon as she got out of season :)

my last 'rescue' abandoned at a house when the people moved out. shots right away,wormed, no heartworms. set-up a spay for 2 weeks after vaccines, but she came in season within a week. happy,young, brave, tiger-striped brindle beauty. you wouldn't happen to want to adopt a nice dog would you? gets along fine even with little dogs, makes friends easy

[roody]

109. Thank you for rescuing her. I have two shelter dogs and

usually a foster also.

[sammytko]

120. Females can be spayed when in heat, just costs more. N/t

[Sancho]

51. FYI link for those interested...

https://www.facebook.com/PitbullBan

Meanwhile, I'm not a canine expert, but I've owned dogs for 50 years and put most of them through training like obedience, agility, and similar classes.

Honestly, some pit bulls are scary. Maybe not all, but they are aggressive and will attack other dogs. Some owners keep them under control, but many don't. When taking my dogs for a walk or to dog parks, I look for pit bulls.

I think that training helps with any dog, but it's obvious that many pit bulls come from genetic backgrounds of fighting. They also don't just bite. If you've ever seen most dogs bite when annoyed or scared - they bite or nip and then retreat. If you pop them on the nose or whatever, they take off.

I've seen pit bulls that wouldn't let go even when they are taking a beating. That's the difference between the breed and most other dogs. I would think this is obvious by now, but any breed with such a reputation should at least be carefully evaluated and treated as a potential problem. Pit bull supporters need to start getting realistic about owning such animals, or they should be liable for what those animals do.

[marions ghost]

56. thank you

---------Make the owners liable and suddenly they WILL get realistic.

Goes for pit bulls and any other breed but it seems people are very careless with pits, underestimating their potential for aggression.

[Carolina]

74. Thank you

for pointing out what the pit bull apologists won't acknowledge... there is something about that breed.

When I adopted a neutered terrier mutt, I took him for training because once I got him home he showed some aggressive tendencies. In the class, there were 5 other families with assorted mutt adoptees and 1 young pit bull. Everyone in the class feared the pit bull because of the way he eyed all the other dogs. Though somewhere between 6 months and one year of age (puppyhood?), the animal was stocky and powerful, and his owner clearly had no control over him. Only the class trainer had any mastery and could handle him. Yet, even he finally gave up because the dog's family would not follow through on assignments. The family was not cooperative and the dog was clearly aggressive and a threat to the class (canines and humans). When the trainer dismissed him, he warned the owner that he had no business with such an animal and that he would get in trouble one day when the animal hurt someone.

Yes, it is the owner, but having endured 4 very unnerving, training sessions with THAT DOG, I will forever maintain that there is something about that breed!

[roody]

95. Pit bull supporters train, supervise, protect, and

love their dogs. Also sterilize them. Also rescue them.

[Sancho]

100. Not all of them...

so if you don't know what kind of dog you have; if you aren't willing to supervise it properly, or if you don't know how to train it...then you shouldn't have that dog.

Some pit bulls were born as a product of breeding to fight. Some of those end up in shelters or available to irresponsible owners. That is a dangerous situation.

Owners need to be held responsible.

I'm just saying that it's my observation that pit bulls can be very aggressive, so it takes a particularly good trainer; and sometimes the dog is not trainable (at least for a normal neighborhood with kids, pets, and folks walking about).

[baldguy]

105. Poodles, Beagles & GSDs can be aggressive too.

More so than Pit Bulls.

[roody]

107. A non trainable dog should be euthanized.

[99Forever]

110. Some do...

... many don't. Many are a menace to their neighbors. I hear "Pit bull supporters" drone on about it's "not the breed, it's bad owners," but I never hear a word from them about what they are proposing to do to change that dynamic. So what's your plan Roody? What do you suggest as a solution to the problem posed to neighbors by "bad owners?"

[roody]

112. I train shelter dogs in a class called

Pit crew. I support spay and neuter laws. Any loose dog is not supported by its owner because it is not safe. I foster shelter dogs to get them relaxed and adoptable. I would like a one year moratorium on all dog breeding. It would give rescuers a chance to catch up.

[99Forever]

113. How does that address my question?

Why do "Pit bull supporters" ALWAYS avoid the question of WHAT PRECISELY can be done to stop neighborhoods from being menaced by viscous, dangerous Pit bulls, be they that way because of their breeding or because of "bad owners?" Having been terrorized by some such Pit bulls, I want an answer that will work. If not, I'll continue to work on having the the breed outlawed where I live. If people like you won't fix the problem, people like me will.

[roody]

114. Vicious dogs should be euthanized.

That is what my county does. They also pick up any loose dog. It is illegal for a dog to be loose.

[99Forever]

115. And under what conditions does the term "vicious dog" apply?

Some localities capture strays and take to holding facilities to either be adopted or put down, other don't. The Pit bulls that attacked me were not strays, they were owned by a neighbor, who I suspect had them for all of the wrong reasons. What do you propose SPECIFICALLY be done to PREVENT this from happening?

[roody]

116. My county and city have laws that

prevent this. I'm sorry about your community and the attack you suffered..

[99Forever]

117. Really? That's awesome.

Please site the laws your county and city have that prevent this. What city and county might that be? How do the statutes read, specifically, I would love to have exact language to present to our city council.

[roody]

118. Mendocino County CA

[HappyMe]

55. Good.

It's about time these people are held acccountable. I think they should be charged when a person is killed, maimed or bitten.

[randome]

61. It won't have much of a deterrent, though. Everyone thinks their dogs are different.

Just as every drunk driver thinks he/she can handle it. Just as every gun owner thinks leaving guns out in the open is okay.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HappyMe]

63. No, it won't be a deterrent.

But I think it's high time something is done about this, and the OP is a good start.

[Quantess]

121. I think you're right.

A lot of times, the owner knows their dog is potentially dangerous. The looming prospect of a jail sentence could make a few owners think twice.

[galileoreloaded]

85. in az concealed carry is legal in most public places

and here, all the dog humpers with their pits and rottweilers are about the only reason to carry. cant reason with a vicious dog, cant toss them your wallet, cant beg one. its why cops use them, pure intimidation.

a .25 cent bullet or your life. cheap insurance.