Pit Bull Video

Off Topic
203

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.[/quote]

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.

204

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:

Bully’s were working dogs before crossed with terriers. After crossing with terriers they were bred specifically for fighting read Octobergirl’s first post it tells why they crossed terriers and earlier bullys. These dogs existed before the AKC and the “big deal of dog fighting” existed before then as well. Be honest about the dogs. Don’t just post something until you actually know about the dogs. Being an owner or fan of them does not make you knowledgeable okay.

No. This is historically inaccurate. They were called bull and terriers or half and half’s and date back to the pioneer days.

If your only point of reference is the material provided by that woman who works for litigators you best just STFU.

Watch your tone, son.

[/quote]

I still don’t think you understand, even if it is the case that the breed is old and did other things it doenst mean that many if not most were bred to fight.

I’m not saying that fighting is all a pit can do I’m just saying all dogs bred for a purpose inately perform that purpose (herding dogs and pointers as examples) so pits having been bred as fighting dogs in the past have that inate drive, they aren’t people and can’t really make judgment calls about their behavior.

I think different sources will tell you different things I’m not citing her source to say she is especially credible (read my post below about her lack of understanding of the Constitutional argument regarding BSL) I’m citing to say that there are other accounts of why they were bred. Again, bully’s were workers, then crossed with terriers for fighting BEFORE pioneer days.

Pits are neither bully’s nor terrier’s they are a mix that was made for fighting the fact that they have been used in other ways is really immaterial. The bottom line is much of the BSL (the type that doesn’t ban, but regulates) is justified.

205

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
If a dog is responsible for his own behavior then dog owners are not responsible for their dogs’ actions. Is this the idea? If not, then it is a moot point whether or not the dog has a will or mind of its own since the owner will always be the one to answer for what the dog does.

Also, to say a dog is capable of malice implies that a dog actually thinks about what “bad” things it will do. Dogs do not commit premeditated crimes, they react to stimuli. Captain Ahab thought animals were capable of such things and he was wrong.

People kill other people when driving and the driver is held responsible. All drivers don’t suffer because of an individual’s actions. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by dogs, much more, yet cars are not banned and alcohol is not banned.

There are laws in regard to their use but they are not banned. And whether it was the driver’s fault or a manufacturing problem, ultimately a human is responsible. Even if it was weather that caused the accident it is the driver who is responsible. Property is not held responsible.

Why should a breed of dog be banned and owners of that breed suffer for the actions of other dog owners? Especially when it can be proven that what the dog did was a result of what the owner did or did not do?

There is no proof that any breed is more inclined to violence than another. The number of atttacks when measured against the number of dogs proves that is very rare. There are over 50 million dogs in the US and around 20 people are killed a year.

Only a small percentage of dogs who killed were dogs that were loose. Most occured in the yard or home of the dog.Pits (or dogs identified as pits)are responsible for less than 20% which is not that many when measured against the number of pits out there. Rotties are probably more numerous and they committed an even smaller percentage.

Your legal theory is wrong.

Dogs can act of their own will, dogs are property. Whether or not you understad that doesn’t change the fact.

Dog owners are responsible for the actions of their. Dogs can be viscious and can and do prey on people or other animals. Dogs can ACT on their own to attack. And fella, it isn’t moot, mute or immaterial if the dog can act on its own but still be property and the owner be responsible. That is a huge part of this issue.

Using a fictional character such as Ahab, not the best winner for an analogy.

You say it can be proven what the owner did or didn’t do… Not always.

I have posted links that detail what dogs do attack. They are completely different from what you say. Please post where you got your info.

[/quote]

The reason why people are held responsible for their dogs’ actions is because it is obvious that the owner has a large part in how a dog behaves. If you are saying that based on REPORTED attacks that pits are more prone to violence than other breeds I would challenge that based on your lack of proof.

How many people report a nip from a tiny dog or a little scratch from a cat? To use a stat like the percentage of dog attacks resulting in a fatality is decieving since the actual number of deaths is small. You have a greater chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by a dog. If one person is killed by a pit then 100% of all deaths would be from pits.

BTW, when a dog bites someone and is put down it is not to punish the dog. Again, you cannot judge a dog morals. The dog is killed to protect people. Dogs do not get punished. They don’t understand the concept.

Another thing that people don’t seem to get is the idea that dogs are not unpredictable. What happens when a guy turns out to be a serial killer? The neighbors get interviewed and say they had no idea; he seemed so normal.

Parents always claim their kids are good and any bad behavior is an abberation. It’s the same with dog owners. If someone’s dog mauls someone are they going to admit that their dog is vicious? of course not because they open themselves up to scrutiny that way. so they just blame the dog to try and reduce their culpability. When asked if their dog ever bit or tried to bite someone they’ll say, “never. He was always well behaved. This never happened before.”

Until I see stats that include the owner’s income levels, criminal history, education, how they raised the dog (was it chained up outside all day for example), etc., the current numbers prove nothing. I doubt you’ll see the argument from polticians and others include that info because they have to be PC.

206

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Jesus… a guy dressing his dog up to make the thing look cute and that is supposed to be an argument.

So is it a good argument when someone shows a picture of a dog viciously showing his teeth?

The people who try to recruit others against certain breeds do the same thing to try and get their point across.

Neither are good arguments, but if it helps change the minds of those who have already been seduced to believe these dogs are vicious attackers, I’m for it.

The good arguments are the captions that went along with those pictures, IMO.[/quote]

Oh yah, i agree what you are saying to totally. I was just expressing how I hate it when people use rhetoric and propeganda this way. Doesnt matter what side it is for. Its all stupid to me.
Thanks for your post though, you make a good point.

207

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. I do know of Eminent Domain. I thought of that in application to property such as actual real estate. And I know they are expanding on Eminent Domain in regards to it being afforded to developers. But it sounds as if you are saying that is being applied to property, not real estate?

What if there were already animal codes already in effect? In my city on the books they have a regulation that no female under the age of 16 can own any ungelded livestock.

It is a good question about the efforts to overturn the bans. These are in big cities you would think there would have been more action if there really is such a huge upset in the pitbull owning community.

208

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
If a dog is responsible for his own behavior then dog owners are not responsible for their dogs’ actions. Is this the idea? If not, then it is a moot point whether or not the dog has a will or mind of its own since the owner will always be the one to answer for what the dog does.

Also, to say a dog is capable of malice implies that a dog actually thinks about what “bad” things it will do. Dogs do not commit premeditated crimes, they react to stimuli. Captain Ahab thought animals were capable of such things and he was wrong.

People kill other people when driving and the driver is held responsible. All drivers don’t suffer because of an individual’s actions. More people are killed by drunk drivers than by dogs, much more, yet cars are not banned and alcohol is not banned.

There are laws in regard to their use but they are not banned. And whether it was the driver’s fault or a manufacturing problem, ultimately a human is responsible. Even if it was weather that caused the accident it is the driver who is responsible. Property is not held responsible.

Why should a breed of dog be banned and owners of that breed suffer for the actions of other dog owners? Especially when it can be proven that what the dog did was a result of what the owner did or did not do?

There is no proof that any breed is more inclined to violence than another. The number of atttacks when measured against the number of dogs proves that is very rare. There are over 50 million dogs in the US and around 20 people are killed a year.

Only a small percentage of dogs who killed were dogs that were loose. Most occured in the yard or home of the dog.Pits (or dogs identified as pits)are responsible for less than 20% which is not that many when measured against the number of pits out there. Rotties are probably more numerous and they committed an even smaller percentage.

Your legal theory is wrong.

Dogs can act of their own will, dogs are property. Whether or not you understad that doesn’t change the fact.

Dog owners are responsible for the actions of their. Dogs can be viscious and can and do prey on people or other animals. Dogs can ACT on their own to attack. And fella, it isn’t moot, mute or immaterial if the dog can act on its own but still be property and the owner be responsible. That is a huge part of this issue.

Using a fictional character such as Ahab, not the best winner for an analogy.

You say it can be proven what the owner did or didn’t do… Not always.

I have posted links that detail what dogs do attack. They are completely different from what you say. Please post where you got your info.

The reason why people are held responsible for their dogs’ actions is because it is obvious that the owner has a large part in how a dog behaves. If you are saying that based on REPORTED attacks that pits are more prone to violence than other breeds I would challenge that based on your lack of proof.

How many people report a nip from a tiny dog or a little scratch from a cat? To use a stat like the percentage of dog attacks resulting in a fatality is decieving since the actual number of deaths is small. You have a greater chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by a dog. If one person is killed by a pit then 100% of all deaths would be from pits.

BTW, when a dog bites someone and is put down it is not to punish the dog. Again, you cannot judge a dog morals. The dog is killed to protect people. Dogs do not get punished. They don’t understand the concept.

Another thing that people don’t seem to get is the idea that dogs are not unpredictable. What happens when a guy turns out to be a serial killer? The neighbors get interviewed and say they had no idea; he seemed so normal.

Parents always claim their kids are good and any bad behavior is an abberation. It’s the same with dog owners. If someone’s dog mauls someone are they going to admit that their dog is vicious? of course not because they open themselves up to scrutiny that way. so they just blame the dog to try and reduce their culpability. When asked if their dog ever bit or tried to bite someone they’ll say, “never. He was always well behaved. This never happened before.”

Until I see stats that include the owner’s income levels, criminal history, education, how they raised the dog (was it chained up outside all day for example), etc., the current numbers prove nothing. I doubt you’ll see the argument from polticians and others include that info because they have to be PC.

[/quote]

You have repeatedly failed to provide any basis for your statistics.

I have provided you with the link with the attack info.

Using your own argument, how many people don’t report an attack by a pit because it was a family or friends dog and they didn’t want to cause trouble? That could be the case using your own reasoning. It swings both ways.

Animals can be unpredictable.

And you just don’t get it.

209

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.

Thanks for the clarification. I do know of Eminent Domain. I thought of that in application to property such as actual real estate. And I know they are expanding on Eminent Domain in regards to it being afforded to developers. But it sounds as if you are saying that is being applied to property, not real estate?

What if there were already animal codes already in effect? In my city on the books they have a regulation that no female under the age of 16 can own any ungelded livestock.

It is a good question about the efforts to overturn the bans. These are in big cities you would think there would have been more action if there really is such a huge upset in the pitbull owning community.

[/quote]

I agree I haven’t really seen cases dealing with anything but real estate, but I’m positive that the Fifth Amendment applies to personal property. I’m not saying the case would be a winner, but I want someone else to just to see how it goes. The Constitution doesn’t refer to real estate it just says private property, and the taking doesn’t have to occur through eminent domain, that is to say the police wouldn’t necessarily have to come and take your dogs for there to be a taking. If the regulation restricts the use of your property such that it’s worthless etc. that can be a taking, referred to as a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” I think breeders especially could argue that a regulation rendered their business valueless and that the government should either drop the regulation or pay to move them. You can even succeed in a takings suit if you buy property with notice that it violates a regulation and get your just compensation. There could also be due process suits on a lot of BSL.

I think the reason there aren’t suits is that Pit owners aren’t quite as organized as they could be. And it may be cheaper and easier to just sway public opinion on the issue than pay lawyers.

210

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.

Thanks for the clarification. I do know of Eminent Domain. I thought of that in application to property such as actual real estate. And I know they are expanding on Eminent Domain in regards to it being afforded to developers. But it sounds as if you are saying that is being applied to property, not real estate?

What if there were already animal codes already in effect? In my city on the books they have a regulation that no female under the age of 16 can own any ungelded livestock.

It is a good question about the efforts to overturn the bans. These are in big cities you would think there would have been more action if there really is such a huge upset in the pitbull owning community.

I agree I haven’t really seen cases dealing with anything but real estate, but I’m positive that the Fifth Amendment applies to personal property. I’m not saying the case would be a winner, but I want someone else to just to see how it goes. The Constitution doesn’t refer to real estate it just says private property, and the taking doesn’t have to occur through eminent domain, that is to say the police wouldn’t necessarily have to come and take your dogs for there to be a taking. If the regulation restricts the use of your property such that it’s worthless etc. that can be a taking, referred to as a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” I think breeders especially could argue that a regulation rendered their business valueless and that the government should either drop the regulation or pay to move them. You can even succeed in a takings suit if you buy property with notice that it violates a regulation and get your just compensation. There could also be due process suits on a lot of BSL.

I think the reason there aren’t suits is that Pit owners aren’t quite as organized as they could be. And it may be cheaper and easier to just sway public opinion on the issue than pay lawyers.[/quote]

I see what you are saying about the private property, but I have looked and have not seen it applied that way. When I have looked up cases, it has only been applied to property/real estate.

So I am right in that you do not have a Constitutional right to own everything or anything you want.

There is the protection against unlawful seizure but if legislation or codes make the owning of the property at issue unlawful, well then, I don’t know if that would be unlawful seizure.

Maybe this thread will inspire someone to make some new legislation or a case to set precedent.

211

Here’s our beast.

212

And another image of our “killer.”

213

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.

Thanks for the clarification. I do know of Eminent Domain. I thought of that in application to property such as actual real estate. And I know they are expanding on Eminent Domain in regards to it being afforded to developers. But it sounds as if you are saying that is being applied to property, not real estate?

What if there were already animal codes already in effect? In my city on the books they have a regulation that no female under the age of 16 can own any ungelded livestock.

It is a good question about the efforts to overturn the bans. These are in big cities you would think there would have been more action if there really is such a huge upset in the pitbull owning community.

I agree I haven’t really seen cases dealing with anything but real estate, but I’m positive that the Fifth Amendment applies to personal property. I’m not saying the case would be a winner, but I want someone else to just to see how it goes. The Constitution doesn’t refer to real estate it just says private property, and the taking doesn’t have to occur through eminent domain, that is to say the police wouldn’t necessarily have to come and take your dogs for there to be a taking. If the regulation restricts the use of your property such that it’s worthless etc. that can be a taking, referred to as a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” I think breeders especially could argue that a regulation rendered their business valueless and that the government should either drop the regulation or pay to move them. You can even succeed in a takings suit if you buy property with notice that it violates a regulation and get your just compensation. There could also be due process suits on a lot of BSL.

I think the reason there aren’t suits is that Pit owners aren’t quite as organized as they could be. And it may be cheaper and easier to just sway public opinion on the issue than pay lawyers.

I see what you are saying about the private property, but I have looked and have not seen it applied that way. When I have looked up cases, it has only been applied to property/real estate.

So I am right in that you do not have a Constitutional right to own everything or anything you want.

There is the protection against unlawful seizure but if legislation or codes make the owning of the property at issue unlawful, well then, I don’t know if that would be unlawful seizure.

Maybe this thread will inspire someone to make some new legislation or a case to set precedent.

[/quote]

When legislation or codes restrict what you can do without seizing the property it is called a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” the body of case law on this is massive. If a regulation does not seize property but restricts use it can still be a taking, for example, you own a pit-bull breeding facility and a new reg makes owning pit-bulls illegal, the government has “taken” your property through regulation without seizing it. Seizing property is by no means necessary to effectuate a taking.

There have been takings cases where property owners purchased property with knowledge of restrictions, and were still able to win a suit against the government.

You are right about ownership. You only have a right to own something insofar as the government hasn’t made it illegal, like drugs, slaves etc.

214

[quote]PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
PGreen711 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
[

People who blame dog owners for all attacks are also stupid. Dogs are animals and for lack of a better description are much like robots in that they cannot help themselves when they respond to stimuli. The best owner and best dog have no way of predicting a dog’s behavior all the time, so whoever keeps saying it is all on the owners is dumb.

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve seen on here. you are responsible for what your dog does legally and will be held responsible legally for criminal charges and fiscal damages.

If the dog got out by mistake, you didn’t secure ut well enough. On your own property, you didn’t control it properly.

Dogs are property as was said, and you are repsonsible for your dog’s actions.

I know you are legally responsible. People on this thread, however, are claiming that the owner is MORALLY responsible, that is to say that a pit bull attack only happens when an owner is bad. That is not true. Of course there are legal ramifications for owners. You have to be the dumbest most dense person ever to not under stand what I wrote. You should never post or try to again until you know how to read, and respond. I never said anything about legal responsibility, I was refering to the morons on this board, which includes you moron, who think the owners are somehow the reason their dog attacked someone. Again it doesn’t matter how responsible an owner is a pit can always attack someone that is why owners should be held liable because they made the decision to own a dog like that. Don’t post unless you understand something, for you that would be never.

As a serious question for people who aren’t idiots, in towns that have passed BSL that bans the dogs, have breeders, or owners ever brought suits agaisnt the government based on an unconstitutional taking of private property? And if so have they won?

I am pretty sure that people don’t have a Constitutional right to own everything.

But the slippery slope concept makes it an interesting question.

Would this type of legislature lead to something else?

But there have always been pet/animal code enforcement.

You are classifying the Constitutional right incorrectly. If you own private property the government may not take it unless the taking serves a “public purpose” and the government pays you “just compensation.”

So you of course don’t have the right to own whatever you want, but if a regulation effects a taking of private property you can sue to either get your “just compensation” or sue and argue that the regulation doesn’t serve a valid “public purpose.”

If bans are going into effect and dogs are honestly being taken and/or destroyed with no compensation that is a Constitutional violation because dogs are property. The regulatory body (city state whatever) would also have to prove that a ban on pits alone and not all breeds like them served a valid “public purpose” it seems to me like it would be an interesting lawsuit to bring, depending on how the BSL operates.

Have any of you pit advocates seen or heard of this in places where the dogs get banned. Especially breeders if they are forced to move their operation.

Thanks for the clarification. I do know of Eminent Domain. I thought of that in application to property such as actual real estate. And I know they are expanding on Eminent Domain in regards to it being afforded to developers. But it sounds as if you are saying that is being applied to property, not real estate?

What if there were already animal codes already in effect? In my city on the books they have a regulation that no female under the age of 16 can own any ungelded livestock.

It is a good question about the efforts to overturn the bans. These are in big cities you would think there would have been more action if there really is such a huge upset in the pitbull owning community.

I agree I haven’t really seen cases dealing with anything but real estate, but I’m positive that the Fifth Amendment applies to personal property. I’m not saying the case would be a winner, but I want someone else to just to see how it goes. The Constitution doesn’t refer to real estate it just says private property, and the taking doesn’t have to occur through eminent domain, that is to say the police wouldn’t necessarily have to come and take your dogs for there to be a taking. If the regulation restricts the use of your property such that it’s worthless etc. that can be a taking, referred to as a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” I think breeders especially could argue that a regulation rendered their business valueless and that the government should either drop the regulation or pay to move them. You can even succeed in a takings suit if you buy property with notice that it violates a regulation and get your just compensation. There could also be due process suits on a lot of BSL.

I think the reason there aren’t suits is that Pit owners aren’t quite as organized as they could be. And it may be cheaper and easier to just sway public opinion on the issue than pay lawyers.

I see what you are saying about the private property, but I have looked and have not seen it applied that way. When I have looked up cases, it has only been applied to property/real estate.

So I am right in that you do not have a Constitutional right to own everything or anything you want.

There is the protection against unlawful seizure but if legislation or codes make the owning of the property at issue unlawful, well then, I don’t know if that would be unlawful seizure.

Maybe this thread will inspire someone to make some new legislation or a case to set precedent.

When legislation or codes restrict what you can do without seizing the property it is called a “regulatory taking” or “inverse condemnation” the body of case law on this is massive. If a regulation does not seize property but restricts use it can still be a taking, for example, you own a pit-bull breeding facility and a new reg makes owning pit-bulls illegal, the government has “taken” your property through regulation without seizing it. Seizing property is by no means necessary to effectuate a taking.

There have been takings cases where property owners purchased property with knowledge of restrictions, and were still able to win a suit against the government.

You are right about ownership. You only have a right to own something insofar as the government hasn’t made it illegal, like drugs, slaves etc.

[/quote]

I have PMed you a site that will clarify that what you are stating has to do with private property as real estate, not with material goods or things.

If you are a felon you can’t own a gun. If you live in a community where pink flamingos are banned on your front lawn, you can’t put them in your yard.

215

Animals are not unpredictable. Anyone who has owned them knows this. If you have owned a dog for a few years and do not know how he will react in a given situation then you don’t know your dog which is a sign of irresponsible dog ownership. Dogs are not irrational. There are reasons for what they do and malice is not one of them.

As I have already stated; I do not trust any stats that do not give the whole picture. When someone is being sentenced for a crime they bring up their horrible upbringing in order to get some leniency. A dog’s upbringing is just as relevant, maybe more so, when it comes to making a judgment.

216

I read a good portion of this post mainly because I am one of the responsible owners. This pair that I have are brother and sister both from the same litter. They are two of the best behaved and most intelligent dogs that I have ever owned. The loyality that these animals express towards their owners is unbelieveable.
Sooner or later this will be an issue that is blamed on the owners rather than the dogs themselves.
See Ya

217

Great video.

I’ve been a lover or the breed ever since I can remember. And because I one day hope to also be a proud owner, I have done quite a bit of research into the breed. The fact that there are still people out there spreading false information, like that first article that OctoberGirl posted, makes me sick.

If people really took the time to research the breed they’d realize that the a well bred, well trained, and well socialized APBT is probably the least likely of all dogs to attack a human.

Now, I realize that there are those irresponsible owners out there who don’t know the difference between aggression and “gameness” (a trait unique to the APBT), purposely train their dogs to attack, and don’t socialize their dogs to prevent fear aggression. But, the problem there is in the owners, not the breed itself.

My suggestion to OctoberGirl and anyone else who believes that these dogs are innately more dangerous, aggressive, prone to attacking humans than other breeds is to do some more research. There are tons of good sites on the web.

A good one is; www.apbtconformation.com
There is lots of good information on this site, but definitely check out the article “Scientific discussion of aggression in the apbt”. It can be found near the bottom of the page on the left side, under the “Headlines” section.

Down with BSL!

218

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Great video.

I’ve been a lover or the breed ever since I can remember. And because I one day hope to also be a proud owner, I have done quite a bit of research into the breed. The fact that there are still people out there spreading false information, like that first article that OctoberGirl posted, makes me sick.

If people really took the time to research the breed they’d realize that the a well bred, well trained, and well socialized APBT is probably the least likely of all dogs to attack a human.

Now, I realize that there are those irresponsible owners out there who don’t know the difference between aggression and “gameness” (a trait unique to the APBT), purposely train their dogs to attack, and don’t socialize their dogs to prevent fear aggression. But, the problem there is in the owners, not the breed itself.

My suggestion to OctoberGirl and anyone else who believes that these dogs are innately more dangerous, aggressive, prone to attacking humans than other breeds is to do some more research. There are tons of good sites on the web.

A good one is; www.apbtconformation.com
There is lots of good information on this site, but definitely check out the article “Scientific discussion of aggression in the apbt”. It can be found near the bottom of the page on the left side, under the “Headlines” section.

Down with BSL! [/quote]

Don’t assume because I have issues with bad dogs and bad owners that I have not done research. Just because someone doesn’t share your viewpoint doesn’t mean they are coming from a place of ignorance.

Seems like we share the opinion that bad owners are largely responsible for the fear caused by these dogs.

As I stated before, I wish every owner were responsible and provided a good and loving home for these dogs, for any dog.

219

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

I have PMed you a site that will clarify that what you are stating has to do with private property as real estate, not with material goods or things.

[/quote]

Where’s my man Dweezil when I need him?!?

My rotator cuff is sufficiently healed and I thought I would come back and pat myself on the back one more time.

Let’s see if you remember the post that caused you to suck your underwear up your ass so much where I made the “little man’s syndrome” comment.

Well slap my ass and call me Betty!!!

Your little girlyfriend finally found somebody to play lawyer with and is happy as a pig in slop.

PM’s are flying, music is in the air. It’s a beautiful thing and I better stop before I have another emotional response.

Damn, my instincts are good. I LOVE it when I am right. OWWWW, there goes that rotator cuff again.

Additionally, I wanted to mention that my dance card is pretty full and while I appreciate the offer of King, I feel that I may be spreading myself too thin if I were to aspire to such a lofty role in your fiefdom.

Sadly, I am not that familar with monarchial hierarchy but think I might be able to stand in for Duke or Earl of Douchebaggery.

I kind of like the ring of that and this way I can sit at the foot of your throne for a while.

220

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

I have PMed you a site that will clarify that what you are stating has to do with private property as real estate, not with material goods or things.

Where’s my man Dweezil when I need him?!?

My rotator cuff is sufficiently healed and I thought I would come back and pat myself on the back one more time.

Let’s see if you remember the post that caused you to suck your underwear up your ass so much where I made the “little man’s syndrome” comment.

Well slap my ass and call me Betty!!!

Your little girlyfriend finally found somebody to play lawyer with and is happy as a pig in slop.

PM’s are flying, music is in the air. It’s a beautiful thing and I better stop before I have another emotional response.

Damn, my instincts are good. I LOVE it when I am right. OWWWW, there goes that rotator cuff again.

Additionally, I wanted to mention that my dance card is pretty full and while I appreciate the offer of King, I feel that I may be spreading myself too thin if I were to aspire to such a lofty role in your fiefdom.

Sadly, I am not that familar with monarchial hierarchy but think I might be able to stand in for Duke or Earl of Douchebaggery.

I kind of like the ring of that and this way I can sit at the foot of your throne for a while.
[/quote]

Why is it you had nothing to say when anyone else brought up legislation, dealing with the courts or changing regulations? Why are laypeople more entitled to express their theory? Is it because I am a woman or because I don’t agree with you?

Shouldn’t you be at work at one of your three companies of which you are CEO?

You sure do pay a lot of attention to this secretary. Now stop playing at the hair pulling in the schoolyard, I don’t like you, you’re a tool and a pompous, boring, loser.

221

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Why is it you had nothing to say when anyone else brought up legislation, dealing with the courts or changing regulations? Why are laypeople more entitled to express their theory? Is it because I am a woman or because I don’t agree with you?

Shouldn’t you be at work at one of your three companies of which you are CEO?

You sure do pay a lot of attention to this secretary. Now stop playing at the hair pulling in the schoolyard, I don’t like you, you’re a tool and a pompous, boring, loser.

[/quote]

Ahhh. The gloves are coming off, I see. Wow. A swing and a miss.

That CEO comment really got your goad, did it not? Perhaps if you weren’t working so hard to be a pseudo intellectual it wouldn’t have cut quite so deep.

In short, Semencic is a nut. He has used his “expertise” in a largely uncontested field to make some money and get some publications.

Surely an academic such as yourself understands the status associated with such activities. He’s like the renegade intellectual. He claims a PhD, but last I heard, noone can figure out where the fuck he got it from.

Your next point of reference is an article titled “Scared of Pit Bulls, Well You Should Be!!!” or some such nonsense where the author alleges his young family was chased from their neighborhood by dogs at large. Holy shit. This guy is dripping with credibility. What a fantastic conversationalist this guy would be at a cocktail party. (Oh, btw this article is 8 years old.)

Interestingly, both authors conveniently combine British history of the breed with American.

Don’t try to dispute this point because it is fact and a typical tactic of alarmists. If you think the settlers brought these breeds over with the grand master plan of getting rich having dog fights out on the prarie, you’re a few bricks short.

Additionally, this is a very narrow minded approach to an animal with many redeming characteristics beyond it’s ability to tear the shit out of another dog when adequately trained and encouraged.

The last point of reference you use is from www.dogbitelaw.com. I had a little spare time and perused articles on this site.

To be perfectly honest I could kick the shit out of you just with some of the stuff I read on that site (reference the BSL overturn in Ohio for instance) but again, I have vowed not to spend appreciable time on your silly little alarmist ass.

Call me pompous. I fucking love it. I have been called arrogant and confrontational my whole life. So far I have not changed a thing. Probably too far down the road to deviate significantly, anyway.

You imply I am sideways with you b/c you are a woman. I am happily married for many, many years and have daughters. This isn’t the case. Truth be told, I am a tenacious defender of the women in my life. You would be fortunate to have me close to you.

I could spend the day researching and finding supporting evidence to prove just about any point I wanted to, regardless of how asinine.

Your whole point of approach is to prove there is a problem with the breeds.

Holy shit. You found some points of reference to bolster this. I am stunned.

You have basically monopolized a whole fucking post with your back and forth bullshit.

This may be entertaining in your world but in mine it is profoundly irritating.

That’s it.

222

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Great video.

I’ve been a lover or the breed ever since I can remember. And because I one day hope to also be a proud owner, I have done quite a bit of research into the breed. The fact that there are still people out there spreading false information, like that first article that OctoberGirl posted, makes me sick.

If people really took the time to research the breed they’d realize that the a well bred, well trained, and well socialized APBT is probably the least likely of all dogs to attack a human.

Now, I realize that there are those irresponsible owners out there who don’t know the difference between aggression and “gameness” (a trait unique to the APBT), purposely train their dogs to attack, and don’t socialize their dogs to prevent fear aggression. But, the problem there is in the owners, not the breed itself.

My suggestion to OctoberGirl and anyone else who believes that these dogs are innately more dangerous, aggressive, prone to attacking humans than other breeds is to do some more research. There are tons of good sites on the web.

A good one is; www.apbtconformation.com
There is lots of good information on this site, but definitely check out the article “Scientific discussion of aggression in the apbt”. It can be found near the bottom of the page on the left side, under the “Headlines” section.

Down with BSL!

Don’t assume because I have issues with bad dogs and bad owners that I have not done research. Just because someone doesn’t share your viewpoint doesn’t mean they are coming from a place of ignorance.

Seems like we share the opinion that bad owners are largely responsible for the fear caused by these dogs.

As I stated before, I wish every owner were responsible and provided a good and loving home for these dogs, for any dog.

[/quote]

OctoberGirl,

It seems from your response that you have mistaken my post as some sort of personal attack on you. It was not. My disgust is with people like Katherine Houpt, the woman who you quoted in your first post on this thread, and the Economist’s editor.

These people are spreading at best misquoted and misconstrued information, and at worst flat out sensationalism, scare tactics, and lies.

Now you said that you have done research on the breed, and if that’s true then I applaud you. Most people just believe whatever the media tells them when it comes to this breed. But, why then would you post rubbish like:

I realize that the above is only a quote of what someone else wrote, but you still chose to quote it as if it were true.

I am glad to hear that you feel that irresponsible owners should be held responsible for dog attacks.

Good training,

Sentoguy