First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Pitbull mauls entire family because they tried to dress him in a sweater
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

qwueri wrote:

Of the two victims you linked, both seem to indicate possible abuse to the dogs prior to the attacks:


Oh yeah? Let's see why you think that.



http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/2011-fatality-two-pit-bulls-kill-5-year.html

Fox Charlotte News reports that the owner of the pit bulls that killed Makayla has been charged in connection with her death. Michael Gordon of Waxhaw -- a convicted felon -- is now facing involuntary manslaughter charges.


So, you think that the owner being charged with involuntary manslaughter is evidence of abuse? This is one of the weirdest jumps to a conclusions I've ever heard in my life. How about it being evidence that the owner is responsible for his monstrous hell beasts that go on murder sprees the moment they taste freedom?


http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/04/2011-fatality-four-pit-bulls-maul-new.html

During two supervised visits in 2010, Angie Hardiman allegedly told one of the employees she and her husband "were going to train the puppies to be attack dogs and that they were going to sell them as guard dogs," according to Tuesday's filing. At a subsequent meeting, Angie Hardiman reportedly brought one of the dogs - Diesel - into the CYFD office, where it lunged at an employee, repeatedly growling and snapping at her until she retreated.
Angie Hardiman was not allowed to bring the pit bulls to subsequent meetings.
However, at another meeting, Angie Hardiman reportedly mentioned that she had had to euthanize her dogs' mother "because she hurt another dog ... crush(ing) all the bones in the other dog's head," court documents state. (Ashley Meeks, Silver City-Sun News)


Wow. Sounds like pitbulls should be illegal to me. They are clearly dangerous animals in the hands of literally anyone.

Posted 1/9/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:

Oh what do you know, its actually a pit bull mix. Also Dogs don't attack people like that for no reason, I'm guessing the family didn't provide the "pitbull" with enough mental and physical stimulation.





God I love it when someone posts something so absurd like this.

"We didn't play catch with Fido enough so he killed a 5 year old. We can't blame the breed, though."
35829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
I've known some very nice pit bulls, so it's not like the breed is automatically aggressive/evil, but my dog and I were also attacked by a pit bull years ago (one that belonged to a nice family and that had displayed no prior signs of aggression) when it got loose, so it's not like there's no merit to the "pit bulls are a more dangerous breed on average" argument either.
Posted 1/9/17
I wonder what Randall Lockwood, Ph.D thinks of pitbulls.

Who is that? He's Senior Vice President for Forensic Sciences and Anti-Cruelty Projects of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.


I also think that it is shortsighted and not biologically or ecologically accurate to deny
the fact that dog breed effects behavior and the potential for aggression. Setters "set" because we
bred them to do that. Pointers "point" because we bred them to do that. Retrievers "retrieve"
because we bred them to do that. Fighting dogs "fight" and guarding dogs "guard," and attack
dogs "attack" because we bred them to do that. And to say that all pit bulls are voracious killers
because that's how they were bred is certainly inaccurate. To say that it's all up to the people --
the only bad ones are the ones people abused or are trained to be bad -- that's also untrue.
We have to recognize as in most things, nature and nurture combing, that genetics can load the
gun and interactions is what pulls the trigger.
How you use the raw material you are given, the application you will make of that individual's
abilities, it's like, How are you going to use a chainsaw? Are you going to use it to carve a totem
pole or to carve up a co-ed in a horror movie?"



Likewise, they are disrespectful of the traditional signs of submission and appeasement. When
your German Shepard fights with your Lab, in a play fight or even a serious fight and one of the
dogs goes belly up that is a cut off signal, it is an infantile, juvenile signal and wolves were wired to
say, When I see someone roll over like a puppy does, I don't want to hurt my own puppies, I better
stop showing aggression. So most dogs are hardwired to respond to a display of submission by
cutting off aggression because it means you have won.
But if you area fighting dog and the object is to inflict the most damage possible, a submissive
gesture is just a new opening. In the early 80's, I started hearing from the Humane Society about
the fighting breeds they were getting (and they did not know what they were getting). They would
put that dog into a pen with a German Shepherd, and the German Shepherd speaks "dog," they
play by wolf rules, and the German Shepherd would go belly up, and the pit bull would just
disembowel him. They don't speak that language. They ignore that signal.

And that's one of the most devastating things we have done to fighting dogs. Is that we have
destroyed their ability to speak good wolf or good dog. And they've taken it even one step further.
The truly sinister communicator not only doesn't tell you what he feels or what he is going to do
next. He lies to you.
Fighting dogs lie all the time. I experienced it first hand when I was investigating three pit bulls
that killed a little boy in Georgia. When I went up to do an initial evaluation of the dog's behavior.
The dog came up to the front of the fence, gave me a nice little tail wag and a "play bow" -- a little
solicitation, a little greeting. As I got closer, he lunged for my face.
It was one of those "ah ha" experiences. Yeah, that would really work. That would really work in
a dog pit. Because 99% of dogs are going to read that as "Oh boy I am your friend, let's play --
and there's my opening". I said, How evil is that? That we have been able to create a dog that can
do something like that?"
25522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:Why do you continue this arbitrary line of thought? It doesn't even matter. The idea that it is the owner and not the breed is a myth that is clearly dispelled the moment you realize that many dogs are abused and yet most dog breeds do not become vicious killers when they are abused.

Literally, once every 17 days, a pitbull murders an American. Of these deaths, 51% are a household family member. In 2011, more than half of the pitbull fatalities were their own owners.

It has more violent incidents reported for it than most other breeds combined.

Spoilers: It doesn't really matter if it's the owner's fault if the breed is disproportionately by a large margin responsible for human death and more than half being their own owners.


And prior to 1998 it was Rottweilers that topped the list. In 1980 it was Great Danes and Huskies. In 1974 it was St Bernards.

"In 2014, new statistical evidence emerged regarding the province-wide ban on "pit bulls", more specifically the American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Terrier, in the Canadian province of Ontario. It was reported to show that since the ban had been implemented, dog bites involving the two breeds and dogs of their likeness had dropped considerably in the province's largest city Toronto, yet overall dog bites hit their highest levels this century in 2013 and 2014."

The breed changes as the mongoloids who abuse them pick a new flavour of status dog to get. Which ever dog gangs are using for protecting their land and for dog fights will be the ones at the top of the list.

We are damn lucky Ovcharka, Mastiffs and St Bernards are very expensive and hard to get otherwise they'd be their dogs of choice and those things are 4-5 times the size of a Pit Bull.
21467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


qwueri wrote:

Not knowing the history of the dog or the details of what set the dog off, it shouldn't be surprising that trying to physically pull a dog off of someone is not going to deescalate the situation, and stabbing it is just going to make the situation that much worse. From the few details available, as has already been said a couple of times in this thread, it's a case of shitty owners. Stabbing the animal in particular sends alarm bells off, just what kind of abuse has this dog been going through?


So, without any prior history, you are just going to assume the dog has been abused?


Its a fair assumption. If dogs are not abused they are very unlikely to go beyond the first bite. Dogs raised in a good home rarely go beyond a warning bite. If they go beyond that then either they hate you or they learned to be very aggressive when threatened.


So, did you research this at all? I'm curious before I actually lay down the facts.


I've only grew up around dogs ALL my life. I've even taken care of formerly abused animals that were vicious. Some dog breeds are more likely to become submissive when abused and others are more likely to get aggressive. Once they are abused they are overly cautious and misinterpret stuff as possible abuse, PTSD. If they live peacefully for long enough they calm down but if they feel like they are being put back in that situation then they either go with attacking or submission.

Its also good to teach your dog early on that you WILL bite back so they don't think they can get away with biting.
riem2k 
11134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

HeartDisease wrote:

Did the owners not know the temperament of their own dog? If they didn't know how to read a dog's body language and act accordingly, then they really had no business owning a dog with aggression issues.


The attack seems to have taken place one month after the dog was adopted.


Neighbors said the family just got the dog about a month ago. They said at times Scarface would get out of the yard and run through the neighborhood.

http://www.ktts.com/news/national/dog-attack-sends-three-people-to-hospital-in-tampa
Posted 1/9/17

Rujikin wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


qwueri wrote:

Not knowing the history of the dog or the details of what set the dog off, it shouldn't be surprising that trying to physically pull a dog off of someone is not going to deescalate the situation, and stabbing it is just going to make the situation that much worse. From the few details available, as has already been said a couple of times in this thread, it's a case of shitty owners. Stabbing the animal in particular sends alarm bells off, just what kind of abuse has this dog been going through?


So, without any prior history, you are just going to assume the dog has been abused?


Its a fair assumption. If dogs are not abused they are very unlikely to go beyond the first bite. Dogs raised in a good home rarely go beyond a warning bite. If they go beyond that then either they hate you or they learned to be very aggressive when threatened.


So, did you research this at all? I'm curious before I actually lay down the facts.


I've only grew up around dogs ALL my life. I've even taken care of formerly abused animals that were vicious. Some dog breeds are more likely to become submissive when abused and others are more likely to get aggressive. Once they are abused they are overly cautious and misinterpret stuff as possible abuse, PTSD. If they live peacefully for long enough they calm down but if they feel like they are being put back in that situation then they either go with attacking or submission.

Its also good to teach your dog early on that you WILL bite back so they don't think they can get away with biting.


Have a pitbull bite you and bite back and report back on your findings.
qwueri 
20046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:

Why do you continue this arbitrary line of thought? It doesn't even matter. The idea that it is the owner and not the breed is a myth that is clearly dispelled the moment you realize that many dogs are abused and yet most dog breeds do not become vicious killers when they are abused.

Literally, once every 17 days, a pitbull murders an American. Of these deaths, 51% are a household family member. In 2011, more than half of the pitbull fatalities were their own owners.

It has more violent incidents reported for it than most other breeds combined.

Spoilers: It doesn't really matter if it's the owner's fault if the breed is disproportionately by a large margin responsible for human death and more than half being their own owners.


If you think the animal's treatment doesn't matter, you don't understand dog behavior. Pit bulls were originally bred for bull and bear baiting. They're a breed originally intended for dealing with large animals, and unlike other large breeds like bull mastiffs they are far cheaper, more likely to be mix bred, and more likely to be owned for fighting purposes.

I'm assuming you're getting your statistics from http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2015.php . Twenty eight fatal deaths from pit bulls doesn't sound all that impressive for the number of dogs running around, considering an average of 49 people per year in the US dies from lighting strikes https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/lightning-deaths-by-state-2005-2014 . Particularly since their measurements for the percentage of breed sounds like a guess at best:

Breed populations are determined annually by searching over 56 million online classified ad listing dogs for sale and adoption.


When a breed of dog is disproportionately being raised to be violent due to it's physique and cost, separating it's genetic tendencies is murkier than you're letting on.



KennethKenstar wrote:


qwueri wrote:

Of the two victims you linked, both seem to indicate possible abuse to the dogs prior to the attacks:


Oh yeah? Let's see why you think that.



http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/2011-fatality-two-pit-bulls-kill-5-year.html

Fox Charlotte News reports that the owner of the pit bulls that killed Makayla has been charged in connection with her death. Michael Gordon of Waxhaw -- a convicted felon -- is now facing involuntary manslaughter charges.


So, you think that the owner being charged with involuntary manslaughter is evidence of abuse? This is one of the weirdest jumps to a conclusions I've ever heard in my life. How about it being evidence that the owner is responsible for his monstrous hell beasts that go on murder sprees the moment they taste freedom?


http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/04/2011-fatality-four-pit-bulls-maul-new.html

During two supervised visits in 2010, Angie Hardiman allegedly told one of the employees she and her husband "were going to train the puppies to be attack dogs and that they were going to sell them as guard dogs," according to Tuesday's filing. At a subsequent meeting, Angie Hardiman reportedly brought one of the dogs - Diesel - into the CYFD office, where it lunged at an employee, repeatedly growling and snapping at her until she retreated.
Angie Hardiman was not allowed to bring the pit bulls to subsequent meetings.
However, at another meeting, Angie Hardiman reportedly mentioned that she had had to euthanize her dogs' mother "because she hurt another dog ... crush(ing) all the bones in the other dog's head," court documents state. (Ashley Meeks, Silver City-Sun News)


Wow. Sounds like pitbulls should be illegal to me. They are clearly dangerous animals in the hands of literally anyone.



I think the owner having a previous criminal record brings into question how the dogs were being cared for and why.

I'm curious as to how you think someone deliberately raising a pit to be violent means they're 'clearly dangerous in the hands of literally anyone.'
7613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/9/17
I saw this like 1-2 weeks ago
Y'all slow
Posted 1/9/17

qwueri wrote:

I think the owner having a previous criminal record brings into question how the dogs were being cared for and why.

I'm curious as to how you think someone deliberately raising a pit to be violent means they're 'clearly dangerous in the hands of literally anyone.'


You have literally zero evidence the dogs killed a person because they were abused and despite all evidence to the contrary you continue to maintain they were abused.

Because she set out to create a killer dog and easily accomplished her task.
21467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


qwueri wrote:

Not knowing the history of the dog or the details of what set the dog off, it shouldn't be surprising that trying to physically pull a dog off of someone is not going to deescalate the situation, and stabbing it is just going to make the situation that much worse. From the few details available, as has already been said a couple of times in this thread, it's a case of shitty owners. Stabbing the animal in particular sends alarm bells off, just what kind of abuse has this dog been going through?


So, without any prior history, you are just going to assume the dog has been abused?


Its a fair assumption. If dogs are not abused they are very unlikely to go beyond the first bite. Dogs raised in a good home rarely go beyond a warning bite. If they go beyond that then either they hate you or they learned to be very aggressive when threatened.


So, did you research this at all? I'm curious before I actually lay down the facts.


I've only grew up around dogs ALL my life. I've even taken care of formerly abused animals that were vicious. Some dog breeds are more likely to become submissive when abused and others are more likely to get aggressive. Once they are abused they are overly cautious and misinterpret stuff as possible abuse, PTSD. If they live peacefully for long enough they calm down but if they feel like they are being put back in that situation then they either go with attacking or submission.

Its also good to teach your dog early on that you WILL bite back so they don't think they can get away with biting.


Have a pitbull bite you and bite back and report back on your findings.


Only a pitbull? Hah! I've been bit by at least 5 different breeds. The key is biting them back and letting them know you are not going to put up with their shit. You can see the shock in their eyes when you bite them especially if you get the nose.
35333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17
Pitbulls require an experienced owner that actually knows something about dogs. Not because they are unbridled killing machines waiting for a chance to strike but because they have considerable power at their disposal and they go all lockjaw on you if they do turn aggressive. Its not a matter of whether a pitbull is more or less aggressive than a Shih Tzu. Its that when the Shih Tzu snaps your life isn't in danger.

Unfortunately, pitbulls get adopted by douche bags that want a "manly" dog to intimidate people with it and/or morons that name it "Scarface" then try to force a sweater on it.

qwueri 
20046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:

You have literally zero evidence the dogs killed a person because they were abused and despite all evidence to the contrary you continue to maintain they were abused.

Because she set out to create a killer dog and easily accomplished her task.


What contrary evidence? I've seen evidence that implicates possible abuse (criminal record), but nothing to firmly rule it out.

Any asshole that sets out to train a dog to attack is going to make a dangerous dog. That has little to nothing to say about the breed other than assholes like to pick the dogs used in dog fighting.
25522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Northern Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

KennethKenstar wrote:You have literally zero evidence the dogs killed a person because they were abused and despite all evidence to the contrary you continue to maintain they were abused.

Because she set out to create a killer dog and easily accomplished her task.


I could do that with an ovcharka or malinois but you don't see everyone running to the hills to get them banned. Know why? They are rare, expensive and the breeders are very specific about who gets one. Pitbulls are plentiful, cheap and bred by every joe blogs and his granny.

American Pit Bulls are fine IF they are from a reputable breeder and not Jesse or Paul, the local hoods who fires out a dozen a season for their local illegal fighting ring.


Also


runec wrote:

Pitbulls require an experienced owner that actually knows something about dogs. Not because they are unbridled killing machines waiting for a chance to strike but because they have considerable power at their disposal and they go all lockjaw on you if they do turn aggressive. Its not a matter of whether a pitbull is more or less aggressive than a Shih Tzu. Its that when the Shih Tzu snaps your life isn't in danger.

Unfortunately, pitbulls get adopted by douche bags that want a "manly" dog to intimidate people with it and/or morons that name it "Scarface" then try to force a sweater on it.



All of this. ^^^^^^
I said it before in my initial post. While a Shih Tzu or Jack Russell is more likely to bite (and do), it ain't going to do shit when it does.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.