Woman mauled by dogs has leg amputated

[Josh]

i hope that old lady who was attacked isn't in pain any longer

pitbulls are PURE GARBAGE

I'm so, so sick of the 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' bullshit

this is a breed that was created to be hyper aggressive with an immensely powerful bite - and they succeeded marvelously

now, we have morons in this country who think they are badass to own - and they breed them - improperly - so now we have all these poorly bred pitbulls around - genetically unstable because of the morons breeding them - which creates a lovely combination

they are killers, plain and simple. Might you know, or even own a pitbull that is a very sweet dog? Sure, you might - might that same pitbull one day snap and tear your child's arm off, or much worse? The risk is higher with this breed than all other breeds combined.

Do German Shepards bite? Yes, they do - but they bite to let you know to get the F away from them - they don't hang on and try to tear you to pieces. They are also exponentially smarter than Pit Bulls - do you see police and other law enforcement agencies using trained Pit Bulls? I didn't think so.

These dogs are a menace to society and should be banned. People who go outside of that ban should be jailed.

You are an idiot.

First off, this breed was NOT created to be hyper aggressive, READ before you start assuming things. The breed was created to be naturally kind and gentle towards human beings, and any dog in this breed that showed any aggression whatsoever was "removed." Second, German Shepards and other breeds actually bite "harder" than pitbulls and a German Shepard attacking you is not going to just bite and let go - I don't think any dog would, it's natural instinct if a dog is attacking is to bite to severly injure, not bite to warn. Bark/show teeth to warn. Bite to inflict damage. Third, there is no such thing as "lock jaw" - it is a myth. Finally, yes, actually law enforcement agencies are increasingly using pitbulls as bomb sniffing dogs, and more because of their natural desire to please the human and intelligence when trained properly.

Get your facts straight.

Has no one here seen Dog Whisperer? Of Cesar's entire pack of dogs which dog did he bring into the craziest situations? Daddy. A Pitbull. He has said on many occasions of all his dogs, it was the most calm, and behaved dog. He would take this dog into homes with extremely aggressive dogs and Daddy would never bat an eye, or try to attack another dog or human. He simply remained calm and calmed down the other dog with his type of temperament.

 

[uclaLabrat]

i hope that old lady who was attacked isn't in pain any longer

pitbulls are PURE GARBAGE

I'm so, so sick of the 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' bullshit

this is a breed that was created to be hyper aggressive with an immensely powerful bite - and they succeeded marvelously

now, we have morons in this country who think they are badass to own - and they breed them - improperly - so now we have all these poorly bred pitbulls around - genetically unstable because of the morons breeding them - which creates a lovely combination

they are killers, plain and simple. Might you know, or even own a pitbull that is a very sweet dog? Sure, you might - might that same pitbull one day snap and tear your child's arm off, or much worse? The risk is higher with this breed than all other breeds combined.

Do German Shepards bite? Yes, they do - but they bite to let you know to get the F away from them - they don't hang on and try to tear you to pieces. They are also exponentially smarter than Pit Bulls - do you see police and other law enforcement agencies using trained Pit Bulls? I didn't think so.

These dogs are a menace to society and should be banned. People who go outside of that ban should be jailed.

Quoted for fact and logic fail.

 

[dabuddha]

i hope that old lady who was attacked isn't in pain any longer

pitbulls are pure garbage

i'm so, so sick of the 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' bullshit

this is a breed that was created to be hyper aggressive with an immensely powerful bite - and they succeeded marvelously

now, we have morons in this country who think they are badass to own - and they breed them - improperly - so now we have all these poorly bred pitbulls around - genetically unstable because of the morons breeding them - which creates a lovely combination

they are killers, plain and simple. Might you know, or even own a pitbull that is a very sweet dog? Sure, you might - might that same pitbull one day snap and tear your child's arm off, or much worse? The risk is higher with this breed than all other breeds combined.

Do german shepards bite? Yes, they do - but they bite to let you know to get the f away from them - they don't hang on and try to tear you to pieces. They are also exponentially smarter than pit bulls - do you see police and other law enforcement agencies using trained pit bulls? I didn't think so.

These dogs are a menace to society and should be banned. People who go outside of that ban should be jailed.

quoted for fact and logic.

ftfy

 

[SP33Demon]

Sick and tired of retard pit bull defenders whining like little bitches "Oh they're sweet gentle dogs" Fuck that bullshit.

And the Department of Justice says you (and others who are prejudiced against certain breeds) are fcking morons and that anyone who denies a person their service dog based on breed discrimination is in violation of the ADA. IF Pits were so evil, they wouldn't be allowed by our government as service dogs, period.
http://www.workinglikedogs.com/2011...stance-dogs-to-become-stricter-march-15-2011/

The new regulations, however, do not place limits on breed or size of dog.

In addition, ADA says a service dog can be denied but only after it displays aggressive behavior/direct threat. Common sense, amazing isn't it?
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

10. Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Every dog is different. To say a certain breed is more likely to do XYZ is widespread lunacy by people who hate big dogs out of fear. If they were so dangerous, these dogs (including Pits, Rotties, and Shepherds) would not qualify as certified service dogs. I'm glad the DoJ has half a fcking brain even if some people around here do not.

 

[SP33Demon]

http://www.thedogfiles.com/2011/04/28/aurora-colorado-allows-pit-bull-service-dogs-back-into-city/

It’s a big triumph for a very misunderstood breed.

The Aurora, Colorado City Council voted Monday to allow Pit Bulls back into the city on a very limited basis.

The Council voted 6-3 to allow disabled residents to use the dogs as service animals. The Council also reduced the number of banned dog breeds from 10 to 3.

Under pressure from residents who were angry about Pit Bull attacks, Aurora, Colorado banned Pit Bulls in 2006.

But a federal change to the Americans with Disabilities Act now forbids communities from banning any type of service dog. Both Denver, Colorado and Aurora, Colorado have been sued over their Pit Bull bans.

Three Pit Bull breeds, the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, will continue to be outlawed in Aurora, Colorado except for disabled residents who meet the city’s licensing requirements.

At Monday evening’s City Council meeting, a handful of residents weighed in on the proposed ordinance. Several said the dangers of Pit Bulls have never been proven and that the ban should be tossed out entirely.

Councilman Bob Fitzgerald, who has clashed with Pit Bull advocates in the past and voted against the ordinance, said the new A.D.A. mandate effectively junks the Pit Bull ban.

As a followup to my previous post. Haters gonna hate and continue to be morons.

 

[ShawnD1]

Bad Species or bad owner?

There are no bad pokemon. Only bad trainers.

 

[Ichinisan]

http://www.thedogfiles.com/2011/04/28/aurora-colorado-allows-pit-bull-service-dogs-back-into-city/

As a followup to my previous post. Haters gonna hate and continue to be morons.

That's a beautiful dog.

 

[dabuddha]

And the Department of Justice says you (and others who are prejudiced against certain breeds) are fcking morons and that anyone who denies a person their service dog based on breed discrimination is in violation of the ADA. IF Pits were so evil, they wouldn't be allowed by our government as service dogs, period.
http://www.workinglikedogs.com/2011...stance-dogs-to-become-stricter-march-15-2011/


In addition, ADA says a service dog can be denied but only after it displays aggressive behavior/direct threat. Common sense, amazing isn't it?
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm



Every dog is different. To say a certain breed is more likely to do XYZ is widespread lunacy by people who hate big dogs out of fear. If they were so dangerous, these dogs (including Pits, Rotties, and Shepherds) would not qualify as certified service dogs. I'm glad the DoJ has half a fcking brain even if some people around here do not.

Are you one of those ignorant fools that thinks the government always does what's best? Bottom line, the breed has been bred to be killer. Sure there might be a few that are good but for the most part they're bad. But forget all that. Since you claim that the breed is good, you'd be ok for the owner to be held liable for what the dog does, right? So if the dog does murder someone, you're ok with the owner being tried for murder as well? I personally am not looking for a ban on the breed. I just want people to be held responsible for their retarded decisions.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Fuck that, put the owners to sleep. That should be a caveat for owning pit bulls. If you want to own one, that's fine but you will be held responsible for the dog's actions. If the dog murders someone, it should be the same as you murdered someone. And I would apply this to all animal owners. Sick and tired of retard pit bull defenders whining like little bitches "Oh they're sweet gentle dogs" Fuck that bullshit.

Watch some more news and continue to live in fear.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Are you one of those ignorant fools that thinks the government always does what's best? Bottom line, the breed has been bred to be killer. Sure there might be a few that are good but for the most part they're bad. But forget all that. Since you claim that the breed is good, you'd be ok for the owner to be held liable for what the dog does, right? So if the dog does murder someone, you're ok with the owner being tried for murder as well? I personally am not looking for a ban on the breed. I just want people to be held responsible for their retarded decisions.

I'm going to have to go with, dog experts, my own personal experience with dogs, and my rudimentary understanding of genetics. Who is responsible for your retarded decisions?

 

[dabuddha]

I'm going to have to go with, dog experts, my own personal experience with dogs, and my rudimentary understanding of genetics. Who is responsible for your retarded decisions?

I go with dog experts, my own personal opinion, and good ole fashioned common sense. Now answer the question I asked. It's a very simple one If you're fine with it, then there really isn't any argument here.

 

[Josh]

I go with dog experts, my own personal opinion, and good ole fashioned common sense. Now answer the question I asked. It's a very simple one If you're fine with it, then there really isn't any argument here.

By that logic, if my neighbor's pekingese bites my ankle as it has snapped at me in the past...she should be tried for assault and battery? Maybe attempted murder?

 

[uclaLabrat]

I my own personal opinion, and good ole fashioned fear, paranoia, and propaganda. Now answer the question I asked. It's a very simple one If you're fine with it, then there really isn't any argument here.

ftfy

 

[SP33Demon]

Are you one of those ignorant fools that thinks the government always does what's best? Bottom line, the breed has been bred to be killer. Sure there might be a few that are good but for the most part they're bad. But forget all that. Since you claim that the breed is good, you'd be ok for the owner to be held liable for what the dog does, right? So if the dog does murder someone, you're ok with the owner being tried for murder as well? I personally am not looking for a ban on the breed. I just want people to be held responsible for their retarded decisions.

The government (or judges as in this case) may not always rule fair, but they got this one right and their opinion is greater than anyone on this forum. They make the rules, so you have to accept it. If you don't like it, move to another country.

Where does it say that dog owners aren't responsible or held liable for their dog's actions? How old are you?

If a dog murders someone, of course the owner is held liable. For example, owner of a Pit that killed an old lady:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3999446/detail.html

6 years in prison, 2 felonies, and 2 misdemeanors and that was after cutting a deal to reduce the sentence to half. In addition, that's not even including what she will be sued for financially by the family in Civil Court. Yes, she was charged with murder (felony negligent homicide) and they got her boyfriend too.

And
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/1/moredeathbydogcases1.04.html

Other dog attack cases:

• Colorado news media have often compared the Brooke killing to the January 2001 killing of San Francisco lacrosse coachÄÄ Diane Whipple, 33, by two Presa Canarios kept by Marjorie Knoller, 48, and Robert Noel, 62. A jury convicted both Knoller and Noel of involuntary manslaughter, and convicted Knoller of second degree murder too. The murder conviction was dismissed by trial Judge James Warren. The California Office of the Attorney General has appealed Warren’s ruling. Knoller and Noel have appealed the involuntary manslaughter conviction.


With the appeals pending, Noel was paroled in September 2003, after serving half of a four-year prison sentence. Knoller was paroled on January 2, 2004. As conditions of parole they are barred from having contact with known felons, including each other, and Knoller may not keep animals.


When Knoller and Noel were charged, the most recent previous U.S. murder-by-dog conviction was of Jeffrey David Mann, of Cleveland, Ohio. Mann in Nov-ember 1993 was sentenced to serve 15 years to life in prison for ordering his pit bull to attack Angela “Dolly” Dennise Kaplan on September 2, 1992. Kaplan, the mother of two girls who were then ages 8 and 4, had lived with Mann since 1987. Mann will become eligible for parole in March 2004. Kaplan’s mother Joyce Ragels on January 5 asked the Ohio Parole Board to deny parole.

 

[moshquerade]

By that logic, if my neighbor's pekingese bites my ankle as it has snapped at me in the past...she should be tried for assault and battery? Maybe attempted murder?

Has it snapped at you or actually bit your ankle?
Either way.... this dog is not going to kill you (did you mention attempted murder by a pekinese? hahaha), and that's what we are trying to bring to light here.

 

[dabuddha]

The government (or judges as in this case) may not always rule fair, but they got this one right and their opinion is greater than anyone on this forum. They make the rules, so you have to accept it. If you don't like it, move to another country.

Where does it say that dog owners aren't responsible or held liable for their dog's actions? How old are you?

If a dog murders someone, of course the owner is held liable. For example, owner of a Pit that killed an old lady:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3999446/detail.html

6 years in prison, 2 felonies, and 2 misdemeanors and that was after cutting a deal to reduce the sentence to half. In addition, that's not even including what she will be sued for financially by the family in Civil Court. Yes, she was charged with murder (felony negligent homicide) and they got her boyfriend too.

And
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/1/moredeathbydogcases1.04.html

Not quite the same. I'd say try the owner as if the owner himself had murdered the individual. And with your above bolded statement, you sound like those retarded individuals after 9/11 that would say "if you don't like it, then you can get out". Those same individuals that were ok with the Patriot Act (Jeez how'd we get so far off topic lol). Regardless, since you still didn't answer the question, I can only guess that your answer would be yes given your round-about answer you gave to avoid answering.

 

[WelshBloke]

Has it snapped at you or actually bit your ankle?
Either way.... this dog is not going to kill you (did you mention attempted murder by a pekinese? hahaha), and that's what we are trying to bring to light here.

Dunno, I'm pretty sure you could suffocate someone in their sleep with that thing.

 

[moshquerade]

Dunno, I'm pretty sure you could suffocate someone in their sleep with that thing.

good luck with that.

 

[CZroe]

Has it snapped at you or actually bit your ankle?
Either way.... this dog is not going to kill you (did you mention attempted murder by a pekinese? hahaha), and that's what we are trying to bring to light here.

Using that logic to ban powerful breeds is silly. By that logic we should ban fast cars and fatty foods for being more likely to kill you. Nanny-state?

 

[moshquerade]

Using that logic to ban powerful breeds is silly. By that logic we should ban fast cars and fatty foods for being more likely to kill you. Nanny-state?

*yawn*
your angle has been presented over and over and over.

i didn't advocate banning anything, but the denial in this thread is strong as it pertains to the fact that if you own one of these killers you should be responsible for it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Not quite the same. I'd say try the owner as if the owner himself had murdered the individual. And with your above bolded statement, you sound like those retarded individuals after 9/11 that would say "if you don't like it, then you can get out". Those same individuals that were ok with the Patriot Act (Jeez how'd we get so far off topic lol). Regardless, since you still didn't answer the question, I can only guess that your answer would be yes given your round-about answer you gave to avoid answering.

You're asking me if dog owners whose dog kills someone should be tried for 1st Degree Murder? Not exactly, because every case is different. The guy who ordered his Pit to kill his ex, absolutely. And that guy got 15 to L.

All in all just leave it up to the states (how it is now). You're just splitting hairs and dodging the issue: that any dog is a product of how it was raised/trained and the fact that there has never been an attack by a Pitbull service dog proves it. Surely there would have been at least 1 if what you said was correct. Statistically (0% attacks), you are on the losing side of this debate and the DoJ ruling punctuates it.

 

[Josh]

*yawn*
your angle has been presented over and over and over.

i didn't advocate banning anything, but the denial in this thread is strong as it pertains to the fact that if you own one of these killers you should be responsible for it.

Well who makes the justification then of what's a "killer"? German Shepards are vicious and I'm sure have killed, so have Dobermans, Mastiffs and probably other breeds like Golden Retriever's etc. Every owner needs to be responsible for every dog then. You can't get a pass just because your dog isn't considered a "killer" by your standards. You never know what an animal can do, maybe a Pekingese can't kill me but it might be able to kill a baby. If you want that as the law, then fine. However, don't just make a law based on society's prejudice in this current time period.

 

[moshquerade]

Well who makes the justification then of what's a "killer"? German Shepards are vicious and I'm sure have killed, so have Dobermans, Mastiffs and probably other breeds like Golden Retriever's etc. Every owner needs to be responsible for every dog then. You can't get a pass just because your dog isn't considered a "killer" by your standards. You never know what an animal can do, maybe a Pekingese can't kill me but it might be able to kill a baby.

I have not named a breed nor said anything about getting "a pass."

But that Pekingese is not going to kill you. In fact, you never answered as to whether it has bitten you or just snapped at you.

 

[Josh]

I have not named a breed nor said anything about getting "a pass."

But that Pekingese is not going to kill you. In fact, you never answered as to whether it has bitten you or just snapped at you.

It has snapped at me more than once, it snaps at a lot of people who walk on to the neighbor's property and she usually just picks it up and puts it behind one of those indoor gated things while it barks for a while. It's a mean little territorial fucker and I have no doubt it would bite on to my pants or leg if I was wearing shorts...and yes as I said in my post it won't kill me but it might be able to kill a baby or small toddler.

I figured you named a breed by saying anyone who owns one of "these killers" - I would guess that's a reference to the breed we've all been discussing this entire thread.

 

[SP33Demon]

In a perfect world, they would just have owners who want large (65+lbs) dogs to just buy liability insurance. Or make ALL dog owners insure their pets. Can't afford the insurance, then don't buy the dog, same as a car. I would have no problem with this and it would thin out the dumbass broke gangsters who get large dogs b/c they think it's cool. One less reason to keep the fuzz off of them if they were stopped for an insurance check on the large dog. The downside of this is that it could deter a possible foster parent off.