Pit Bulls attack 72 yr old woman

[mugs]

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

They didn't just tack the gun charge on to get him more time for the dog mauling. The only reason he was charged with both at the same time is presumably because they found the guns while investigating the mauling.

Wait, did you say that you think he'd get a "super low" sentence if he shot someone with guns he owned illegally? Who gets a "super low" sentence for shooting someone?

If you get caught with guns you own illegally, you're going to get charged. The circumstances under which the guns are discovered don't really matter, as long as they're discovered legally.

And he didn't get 11 years for the mauling. 5 years was for a previous crime. You act as if what happened here was no big deal. A woman was severely injured. No, she wasn't raped. But this is not small offense.

 

[jdoggg12]

We need to stop worrying about pit bulls... you dont hear about them traveling in packs like these beasts http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652469/

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

They didn't just tack the gun charge on to get him more time for the dog mauling. The only reason he was charged with both at the same time is presumably because they found the guns while investigating the mauling.

Wait, did you say that you think he'd get a "super low" sentence if he shot someone with guns he owned illegally? Who gets a "super low" sentence for shooting someone?

Pretty much every case involving a murder seems to comes with a low sentence, if any. You hear of people getting convicted, months, or even YEARS after they've actually killed people. Look at OJ Simpson. He killed tons of people, but he only got sentenced for stealing lol. That's a big joke.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
We need to stop worrying about pit bulls... you dont hear about them traveling in packs like these beasts http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652469/

:laugh: Before anyone criticizes him for needing treatment at a hospital, he was probably treated for rabies as a precaution.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
We need to stop worrying about pit bulls... you dont hear about them traveling in packs like these beasts http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10652469/

LMAO that is funny stuff. I recall a small dog like that attacking me once. He was making so much noise barking I expected to turn around and see a huge dog jump me, and here is this little thing biting my shoe.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

Dude, he was breaking more than one law, so they charged him with both. Just because he didn't commit a crime with the guns doesn't mean they would be like "Well we are charging you with letting your dogs almost kill someone already, so we'll let the gun thing slide."

If injurs someone in a drive-by shooting and they find child pornography and crack in his car do they only charge him with attempted murder?

The guy is a scumbag. 11 years sounds good to me.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

They didn't just tack the gun charge on to get him more time for the dog mauling. The only reason he was charged with both at the same time is presumably because they found the guns while investigating the mauling.

Wait, did you say that you think he'd get a "super low" sentence if he shot someone with guns he owned illegally? Who gets a "super low" sentence for shooting someone?

Pretty much every case involving a murder seems to comes with a low sentence, if any. You hear of people getting convicted, months, or even YEARS after they've actually killed people. Look at OJ Simpson. He killed tons of people, but he only got sentenced for stealing lol. That's a big joke.

That's because he was found not guilty of murder. How the hell can you sentence someone for a crime they "didn't commit"? You don't make any sense.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: amdhunter

Originally posted by: theGlove
just an update in case some of you are interested, looks like the pit bull owner got 11 years jail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...842_webpitbull13m.html

Wow that is such bullshit.

How so? If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then he's irresponsible for owning one and should bear responsibility for the damage they cause. If the dogs are not inherently dangerous, then the owner made them vicious. Again he must be held responsible for that.

The fact that he had a fence for them shows he was at least considerate to keep them in his yard. They just happened to be able to jump over it.

I'm not defending the owner, as perhaps he should of made the fence much higher, and still have them on a leash, but I don't agree with such a long sentance. He should be charged a big enough amount of money though.

You put criminals in jail. People who rape little kids, people who kill others, people who are a big danger to society.

I find it funny how they also threw in the illegal weapon charges in there. Shows how they just try to find stuff to charge with as to increase the sentence. He probably did not even have the gun in his hands while the dogs were attacking. The fact that he had the guns has zero to do with the incident.

The guy had a criminal record. It was illegal for him to own guns. What's the problem?

Sure it's illegal, but what does him having those guns have to do with that incident? They used it strictly just to increase his sentence. I'd be curious to know what would happen if he did not own those dogs and shot someone with those guns instead. Bet the sentence would be super low or somehow he'd be let off easy and just have to give up the guns (which he can just go buy more at walmart). Just comes to show how retarded the law is.

Again, I do agree with him getting some kind of sentence, it's just that 11 years is WAY too high. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

They didn't just tack the gun charge on to get him more time for the dog mauling. The only reason he was charged with both at the same time is presumably because they found the guns while investigating the mauling.

Wait, did you say that you think he'd get a "super low" sentence if he shot someone with guns he owned illegally? Who gets a "super low" sentence for shooting someone?

Pretty much every case involving a murder seems to comes with a low sentence, if any. You hear of people getting convicted, months, or even YEARS after they've actually killed people. Look at OJ Simpson. He killed tons of people, but he only got sentenced for stealing lol. That's a big joke.

That's because he was found not guilty of murder. How the hell can you sentence someone for a crime they "didn't commit"? You don't make any sense.

But he DID commit it, that's the thing. What do they do, roll a dice and if it hits a number they just declare "not guilty?". Kinda sad.

 

[zerocool84]

All I know is that I'd rather have a pitbull than a Chihuahua. Those are some crazy dogs. Imagine if they were bigger, they would have a worse rep than pits.

 

[JDawg1536]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel


But he DID commit it, that's the thing. What do they do, roll a dice and if it hits a number they just declare "not guilty?". Kinda sad.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JDawg1536

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel


But he DID commit it, that's the thing. What do they do, roll a dice and if it hits a number they just declare "not guilty?". Kinda sad.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

Pretty sure he's just trolling. He couldn't possibly be serious.

 

[OCGuy]

Fail, he did NOT get that much time for the attack.

Read the article next time.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: evident
man, it's so true. the lady was also vietnamese too- could have been my grandmom! put that asshole down. i think the problem with pitbulls is that the owners dont give them enough training

Adding race/ethnic background etc...into this doesn't really help your argument

pit bulls get a terrible rap though due to the breeding they are doing now and everyone wanting an attack dog as a pet.

Petey of Little Rascals/Our Gang and other of yesteryear were prime example that the pitbull was actually a great all-around dog.

Sucks people are the least common denominator in this.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Those sound like fight dogs. Here comes the ignorant pitbull hate-train.

I have no problem with properly trained pitbulls, but I think they are FAR to easy to mishandle and allow to become public hazards. I'd argue that if we can require special licenses to drive trucks, we can require special lisences for pitbulls and those lisences should be restricted only to people who can show a very high level of control over their animals.

 

[Rudee]

Why the fuck were the dogs not on a leash??