Boy Killed By Mom's Dogs

[rickvanr]

In Ontario, I'm quite sure they are beginning to outlaw owning a pitbull.

Simply because of events such as this, it's one thing when it's like this, but it's another when its someone else's kid, and a loose pitbull attacks them in a public park or in their back yard.

 

[MacRy]

What a complete and utter **** that woman is! Knowing that her dogs were behaving overly aggresive and STILL leaving her young son with them. Some people in this world truly make me dispair. She should be punished to the full extent of the law in my view.

 

[acedickson]

Right. 🙁

Strength and capability to do fatal damage have a bit to do with it as well. You don't hear much about people being mauled to death by enraged Chihuauas.

That's exactly my point. I don't think you read my entire post because I said you don't hear about small dogs attacking because they don't do as much damage or kill.

 

[acedickson]

That's a silly statement.

So all of those attacks - most of which are sudden and completely unprovoked - of both adults and young children being mauled to death by pit bulls and rottweilers is due to the dogs placid nature and the media making up stories???? I don't think so.

As for dalmations, poodles etc, their temperament may be worse, but they tend to be more predictable and are less able to inflict major damage.

Pitt Bulls, as a breed, aren't unpredictable. Like any dog you'll have individual dogs that are unpredictable within that breed. I'm curious where you draw your opinion of these dogs from? I've owned 4 Pitts and 2 Rotts in my lifetime. Plus, I have a friend that breeds Pitts. Not one of my dogs, nor his, have attacked a human. If they did they'd, most certainly, be put down immediately. But, I wouldn't blame it on the breed. I'd blame it on that individual dogs personality.

Look at it this way. If a white man kills another man. Does that mean that all white men are murderers?

I never stated that the media fabricates stories about the dogs mauling or killing humans. I said they're made into monsters because of the damage they can do. You don't hear about the small, or medium sized, dogs that attack humans because they don't maul or kill and it's not a good story for the media. That's the problem I have with the media. They make the entire breed out to be bad when it's individual dogs.

There are Pitts and Rotts that attack. It's most often due to the environment they're in AND how they're raised.

 

[CanadaRAM]

That's exactly my point. I don't think you read my entire post because I said you don't hear about small dogs attacking because they don't do as much damage or kill.

And my point is that your entire post was slanted to depict the breed as not as harmful as reported in the media... You can measure harm by number of attacks or severity of outcome.

You excuse the breed by saying that the majority are due to mistreatment and poor dog care - when there is no evidence to support that in the reports that you are discounting.

Anecdotally (because I am not up for doing the research necessary) the attacks I remember reading about are NOT as a result of starving, mistreated dogs or owners 'siccing' their dog on the victim; they are about the 'gentle family pet' that 'goes off' without warning on a neighbor in the apartment hallway and kills her before she can reach her apartment door.

Or the dogs that run down a neighborhood girl on the street and rip her face off.

Or jump a fence to attack a 2 year old walking down the street with his father
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/02/pit-bull-050302.html

Or turned on the person walking them
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/29/dogs040829.html

Or killing a boy living in the same house with them (Rottweiller) when he walked into the back yard
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/11/04/dogmaul_nb031104.html

Or the pit bull who "never shows aggressive behaviour," ripping off a 10 year old girl's lips
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05/23/1052385.html

Or mauling its owner while on a walk
http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/iss0605/oneillpitbullattack0617.html

or 3 separate Akitas that attacked people three times in the space of a couple of weeks inone city http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/08/27/akita_attacks030827.html

Or unprovoked attacks on people who come to a home's front door
http://www.chathamthisweek.com/story.php?id=165089

These are I believe all in Canada withing the last two years

On May 31 in Kelowna BC there was an unprovoked pitbull attack on a man, outdoors. It's unknown whether he will regain the use of his arms and hands.

In none of these cases was it alleged that the dogs were mistreated, starved or incited to attack by their owners.

What I am saying is that, given some breed's ability to inflict grevious damage quickly, their strength and tenaciousness (they won't run away yipping if you swat them over the nose...) and the long history of maiming and fatal attacks, coupled partially with the propensity of owners to purchase them as guard dogs, I cannot countenance an apologist position that these large fighting dogs are not as agressive as other breeds, and if there have been attacks, it is primarily due to human negligence, mistreatment or lack of owner education. Look to the results.

 

[eva01]

well i am going to say something that people are not going to like but oh well. Some dog breeds have a higher tenacity, possibly. So then maybe certain human races have a higher tenacity, can be just as true as the dogs. Maybe blacks, or hispanics, or whites, or any other race of humans have a higher rate of commiting violent crimes? So then maybe we can bring up all the news stories of someone getting killed. Which (here is the part people will not like) seems to be the minorities in america. A greater percentage of people in jail are of minorities, maybe their DNA has something in it that makes them commit crimes? Just as a certain breed of dog can have a certain DNA that causes them to attack people unprovoked?

*remembers that Law & Order episode with the person that tried to get off with the violence gene*

 

[rickvanr]

eva01, I see where you could make this point from. I do disagree though, I think it has to do more with the environment dogs and people are brought up in that has to do with it more then anything. I also would never ever want a pitbull, rotweiler, doberman, or other dogs like that as a pet.

 

[eva01]

thank-you for not jumping down my throat. I was just stating that point to put a spin on things, to show that these things are not just subject to what many people believe "lower class animals" but it happens to humans as well. That is all i was trying to point out, that humans are not above everything. Instincts are Instincts no matter what species

 

[CanadaRAM]

well i am going to say something that people are not going to like but oh well. Some dog breeds have a higher tenacity, possibly. So then maybe certain human races have a higher tenacity - etc

Not even close. Dog breeds are selectively bred variants of the species with very different physical traits*. Human races are not.

Also an attempt to bring in an inappropriate but inflammatory analogy.


* You could loosley say that dog breeds are hybrids (even purebred lines which had their crossbreeding done 100's or 1000's of years ago) but semantically a hybrid is a cross between two different species.

 

[rickvanr]

One reason why I don't like pitbulls.

On the discovery channel, I was watching a show on how certain dog breeds were evolved. The pitbull was given some genetic flaw that shortened their bodies and also put their nose atop their snout so that when they were holding onto an animal in their mouth, the blood would not get in their nose, so they could keep tearing away at whatever they had ahold of and still breath.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

eva01, I see where you could make this point from. I do disagree though, I think it has to do more with the environment dogs and people are brought up in that has to do with it more then anything. I also would never ever want a pitbull, rotweiler, doberman, or other dogs like that as a pet.

Short sighted IMO, at least when it comes to rotties. I had always been afraid of that breed based on news reports. Then my sister got one. Since then she has had no less than three more. Guess what? They were the sweetest, obedient dogs I have ever met. Only one of them was raised from a pup. The rest, even her new one, Taz, were from shelters or rescues.

 

[StarbucksSam]

My logical thoughts:
I agree it would not fix anything, however charges should be pressed when a law has been violated, regardless of the person's ability to learn from their misdeeds. What could she be charged with anyway? Manslaughter or 3rd degree murder sound like good starting points in my book.

My primal thoughts:
I agree, she does not sound like a quick learner. I hope she runs even slower than she learns when that pit bull comes for her.

Sorry if the last few lines sounded really insensitive. I am just...I dunno. Shocked, appaled, angry, confused. This is a really sad case of a human that has no respect for others. Locking her son in a basement while she runs errands? What?

Sad story all around. 🙁

She should be charged with being an idiot. I'm telling you, first degree stupidity should warrant 20 years in prison. Forget insanity defenses - this woman was just negligent. She KNEW there was a dangerous situation so she LEFT her kid at home alone.

That POOR child. Imagine the suffering. God.

 

[acedickson]

And my point is that your entire post was slanted to depict the breed as not as harmful as reported in the media... You can measure harm by number of attacks or severity of outcome.

You excuse the breed by saying that the majority are due to mistreatment and poor dog care - when there is no evidence to support that in the reports that you are discounting.

Anecdotally (because I am not up for doing the research necessary) the attacks I remember reading about are NOT as a result of starving, mistreated dogs or owners 'siccing' their dog on the victim; they are about the 'gentle family pet' that 'goes off' without warning on a neighbor in the apartment hallway and kills her before she can reach her apartment door.

Or the dogs that run down a neighborhood girl on the street and rip her face off.

Or jump a fence to attack a 2 year old walking down the street with his father
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/02/pit-bull-050302.html

Or turned on the person walking them
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/29/dogs040829.html

Or killing a boy living in the same house with them (Rottweiller) when he walked into the back yard
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/11/04/dogmaul_nb031104.html

Or the pit bull who "never shows aggressive behaviour," ripping off a 10 year old girl's lips
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05/23/1052385.html

Or mauling its owner while on a walk
http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/iss0605/oneillpitbullattack0617.html

or 3 separate Akitas that attacked people three times in the space of a couple of weeks inone city http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/08/27/akita_attacks030827.html

Or unprovoked attacks on people who come to a home's front door
http://www.chathamthisweek.com/story.php?id=165089

These are I believe all in Canada withing the last two years

On May 31 in Kelowna BC there was an unprovoked pitbull attack on a man, outdoors. It's unknown whether he will regain the use of his arms and hands.

In none of these cases was it alleged that the dogs were mistreated, starved or incited to attack by their owners.

What I am saying is that, given some breed's ability to inflict grevious damage quickly, their strength and tenaciousness (they won't run away yipping if you swat them over the nose...) and the long history of maiming and fatal attacks, coupled partially with the propensity of owners to purchase them as guard dogs, I cannot countenance an apologist position that these large fighting dogs are not as agressive as other breeds, and if there have been attacks, it is primarily due to human negligence, mistreatment or lack of owner education. Look to the results.

Many times the dogs aren't socialized, part of proper training I spoke about earlier. The little girl bitten was playing with the Pitts puppies. "She was protecting her puppies." that's straight from one of the parents.

In all those stories the media, in a country trying to outlaw the breed, makes a point to emphasize the breed. I disagree with the attacks being because of the breed in any of the cases. It's too easy to say that.

In most cases of small to medium sized dog attacks we never hear about it because they're not even reported.

PittBull info from dogbreedinfo.com. Read about the temperament of the breed.

"By no means are these dogs people-haters or people-eaters. Their natural aggressive tendencies are toward other dogs and animals, not people. However if they are properly socialized they will not even be aggressive with them. These are truly quality companions for quality owners only!"

"When properly trained and socialized, this is a very good dog and a great family companion. Unfortunately, some choose to promote the fighting instinct in the breed, giving it a bad name."

 

[CanadaRAM]

Based on a sample size of four, your experience is that your dogs are well behaved and not aggressive, and have never attacked anything or any one.

Coincidentally, this is the exact same thing that the majority of owners say after an attack.

Back to my basic point (and BTW I do believe I included reports from several different breeds): Look to the result. Temperament or not, incidents with other breeds rarely result in catastrophic injury or death. Those with large dogs bred for fighting too often do.

And you have not convinced me that the attacks are solely the victim's fault or the owner's negligence.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

She should be charged with being an idiot. I'm telling you, first degree stupidity should warrant 20 years in prison. Forget insanity defenses - this woman was just negligent. She KNEW there was a dangerous situation so she LEFT her kid at home alone.

That POOR child. Imagine the suffering. God.

Not wanting or trying to take this to the political forums; but if she had been at the wrong mosque or visited the wrong website - she would have faced great punishment.

Children are supposed to be our greatest resource. As such they deserve the greatest protection under the law Or so we are told. It goes to the root of my feelings that a parent charged with a "dangerous" driving infraction, should also be charged with child endangerment. The child can not speak for themselves.

And again, not wanting or trying to take this to the political forums - there are elements in the US that are espousing core beliefs that are religious based. Since these beliefs are Christian in basis, and that basis is on the Ten Commandments - the child is to honor their mother and father. As long as the child has a reasonable expectation that the parent has no harm intended by the parents action, the child is expected to obey. Should not that child be protected from the wrong and bad judgments of that parent?

Some of the comments depend on ones point of view what laws and punishment are supposed to do. Should they try and correct the behavior of the individual that is being punished? Should they act as a deterrent for others? Or is it a means to make us feel good that justice has been served? Or is any combination of the above?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

And my point is that your entire post was slanted to depict the breed as not as harmful as reported in the media... You can measure harm by number of attacks or severity of outcome.

You excuse the breed by saying that the majority are due to mistreatment and poor dog care - when there is no evidence to support that in the reports that you are discounting.

Anecdotally (because I am not up for doing the research necessary) the attacks I remember reading about are NOT as a result of starving, mistreated dogs or owners 'siccing' their dog on the victim; they are about the 'gentle family pet' that 'goes off' without warning on a neighbor in the apartment hallway and kills her before she can reach her apartment door.

Or the dogs that run down a neighborhood girl on the street and rip her face off.

Or jump a fence to attack a 2 year old walking down the street with his father
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/02/pit-bull-050302.html

Or turned on the person walking them
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/29/dogs040829.html

Or killing a boy living in the same house with them (Rottweiller) when he walked into the back yard
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/11/04/dogmaul_nb031104.html

Or the pit bull who "never shows aggressive behaviour," ripping off a 10 year old girl's lips
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05/23/1052385.html

Or mauling its owner while on a walk
http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/iss0605/oneillpitbullattack0617.html

or 3 separate Akitas that attacked people three times in the space of a couple of weeks inone city http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/08/27/akita_attacks030827.html

Or unprovoked attacks on people who come to a home's front door
http://www.chathamthisweek.com/story.php?id=165089

These are I believe all in Canada withing the last two years

On May 31 in Kelowna BC there was an unprovoked pitbull attack on a man, outdoors. It's unknown whether he will regain the use of his arms and hands.

In none of these cases was it alleged that the dogs were mistreated, starved or incited to attack by their owners.

What I am saying is that, given some breed's ability to inflict grevious damage quickly, their strength and tenaciousness (they won't run away yipping if you swat them over the nose...) and the long history of maiming and fatal attacks, coupled partially with the propensity of owners to purchase them as guard dogs, I cannot countenance an apologist position that these large fighting dogs are not as agressive as other breeds, and if there have been attacks, it is primarily due to human negligence, mistreatment or lack of owner education. Look to the results.

You raise some good points. But at the same time the media and the people seem focused on the breed rather than the dog itself. I had a hard time finding a rescue for Chewey (my former boy), because I was honest that I thought he was a lab/chow mix. For some heard Chow, and gave a thumbs down.

Statistics can be used to either reject or accept an argument. Using media links only reaffirms the public perception on certain breeds. If a dog attack involved a Jack Russell and a Rottie on the same day, the media would focus on the Rottie. We can blame the breed all we want, but in the end it is the way the owners treat that breed that truly matters.

 

[barneygumble]

In australia we recently introdced a bill that prevents you from breeding these dogs so in future nobody will have them will try and find a link

 

[acedickson]

Based on a sample size of four, your experience is that your dogs are well behaved and not aggressive, and have never attacked anything or any one.

Coincidentally, this is the exact same thing that the majority of owners say after an attack.

Back to my basic point (and BTW I do believe I included reports from several different breeds): Look to the result. Temperament or not, incidents with other breeds rarely result in catastrophic injury or death. Those with large dogs bred for fighting too often do.

And you have not convinced me that the attacks are solely the victim's fault or the owner's negligence.

The only thing Pitts were originally bred for was bullfighting. Nowadays, they should ONLY be bred as a family or show dog, not for anykind of fighting.

My experience is based on my own 4 AND the 25+ my friend has owned in his lifetime. He's bred over 100+ Pitts. Your experience is based off what the media has shown you.

If you could show me some shred of evidence that it's because of their breed that they do this, then I might see it differently. Pitts seem like they attack more because they cause damage and it's reported. Obviously, when they do attack Pitts, Rotts, and Chows have a higher potential to kill. Especially Pitts since they have the strongest bite and their jaws lock.

"If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year."

"From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide)."

"No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep."

My favorite quote summing up my point.

"Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be."

All quotes provided by fataldogattacks.com

Also, I found a site to dog attack fatalities. Rotts, Pitts, and Chows top the list. 20 people were killed lasty year in the USA by dog attacks. 7 in 2003.

"Pit bulls are strong, protective, and possibly misrepresented" according to the Montgomery Humane Society's Scott Missildine. He deals with them everyday. "They are often misinterpreted," he says. "I would say 90 percent of the problem is the owner."

The dogs that attack are not socialized with people (guard dogs) or are mistreated (fighting, malnourished). Most dog attacks, in general, happen to children under 10. That points alot toward kids being placed around the afformentioned dogs and not being well supervised by the parents. Many kids under 10 mistreat dogs as well. All of these things account for why things like this happen. It's total BS when people say they just snapped. There's always some reason that it happened.

BTW, from 1979-1998 Pitt Bulls were involved in biting incidents in the US 111 times. That comes out to about 5.5 bites per year. That's according to the CDC.

There are at least 1 million Pitts in the US. I don't think 6 bites from one breed per year makes the entire breed bad.

Rottweilers bit even less.

One more bit of information regardiong the temperament of Pitt Bulls. This is from Wikipedia. "The National Canine Temperament Testing Association tested 122 breeds, and American Pit Bull Terriers placed the 4th highest with a 95% passing rate."

 

[wdlove]

Pit Bulls & Rottweilers don't have an aggressive nature towards humans, neither like dogs. I've owned both for years and never had a problem out of either breed. The media has made these breeds into monsters because when they do attack they can cause so much damage. It's not the number of attacks. Dalmatians, Poodles, and Chihuahuas, just to name a few, have worse temperaments than Pitts or Rotts.


I disagree. See above.

I'm sorry I should have stated it better. 😱 The way that dogs act are very much related to the way that the dog were raised. A bad owner makes for a bad dog. Some people just shouldn't own dogs. Those owners give the rest of us a bad name. 🙁

 

[rickvanr]

Short sighted IMO, at least when it comes to rotties. I had always been afraid of that breed based on news reports. Then my sister got one. Since then she has had no less than three more. Guess what? They were the sweetest, obedient dogs I have ever met. Only one of them was raised from a pup. The rest, even her new one, Taz, were from shelters or rescues.

I never said they can't be loving dogs. Simply the possibility that they could snap for no reason, unprovoked isn't the only reason I would never want one. It's also the fact that I find most of those breads to be very unattractive.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm sorry I should have stated it better. 😱 The way that dogs act are very much related to the way that the dog were raised. A bad owner makes for a bad dog. Some people just shouldn't own dogs. Those owners give the rest of us a bad name. 🙁

the second time around is the charm.
😀

i think that socioeconomic issues of the owners, coupled with the media location of those owners outweighed any breeding tendencies that might have existed.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I never said they can't be loving dogs. Simply the possibility that they could snap for no reason, unprovoked isn't the only reason I would never want one. It's also the fact that I find most of those breads to be very unattractive.

Attractiveness of the breed is one thing. I can not and will not judge on that. My Chewey was picked for his looks. But he showed me that that his love and demeanor would have shown through, even if he was the ugliest pup around.

As to the "unprovoked" comment, I can only say that after 15 years my sister has never had a Rott that behaved out of norm. But the same concerns you have could be said about any breed of dog. As mentioned before, your concerns may have more to do with larger, potentially more aggressive breeds. But that Jack Russell may cause you just as much harm.

 

[rickvanr]

Attractiveness of the breed is one thing. I can not and will not judge on that. My Chewey was picked for his looks. But he showed me that that his love and demeanor would have shown through, even if he was the ugliest pup around.

As to the "unprovoked" comment, I can only say that after 15 years my sister has never had a Rott that behaved out of norm. But the same concerns you have could be said about any breed of dog. As mentioned before, your concerns may have more to do with larger, potentially more aggressive breeds. But that Jack Russell may cause you just as much harm.

I'll agree that Jack Russels can be violent, but they can't leave you dying, and with a possibility you'll never be able to use your arms and hands again. My 'unprovoked' comment didn't mean that every one will lose it. 1 in 5, 1 in 40, 1 in 100, it will still happen sometime, and the fact that these kinds of dogs can rip someone apart is something to worry about.

 

[dejo]

I'll agree that Jack Russels can be violent, but they can't leave you dying, and with a possibility you'll never be able to use your arms and hands again. My 'unprovoked' comment didn't mean that every one will lose it. 1 in 5, 1 in 40, 1 in 100, it will still happen sometime, and the fact that these kinds of dogs can rip someone apart is something to worry about.

All a Jack Russell (or any other breed of dog, for that matter) needs to do is bite you in the jugular vein and you could be left dying.

Just because 1 dog out of 100 from a breed will attack, is that enough justification to condemn the entire breed? If you think so, then you are a "breedist", the canine version of racist.

 

[mad jew]

All a Jack Russell (or any other breed of dog, for that matter) needs to do is bite you in the jugular vein and you could be left dying.

True, but it's a sliding-scale thing in that different types/breeds of dogs are more capable of killing than others. Whether or not they're more likely to kill is obviously subjective though.