Pit Bull Video

Off Topic
163

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
Legally dogs have no freewill. They are animals, i.e., property, just like a car. Who trained the dog to attack? A human who modified the dog’s natural behavior to suit his needs. Where is the dog’s freewill in all of this? The dog did not choose how he was raised or his living conditions-all things that influence his behavior. The idea that car does nothing without a person’s actions apply to the dog as well. Dogs wouldn’t even be dogs if not for humans.

I am not sure where you get your legal definitions from. Dogs are legally found to be roaming “at will.”

So the owner’s are not culpable for the dog’s actions? Are you saying an owner can say, “it’s not my fault the dog was acting on his will,” as a defense in court? that’s meesed up since a dog lacks the ability to defend himself in a court of law. It’s the owner’s word against the dog’s bark. [/quote]

I don’t think you’ve read my other response to your post yet.

Dogs have will, they are property. Owners are resonsible for property.

And actually there is proposed changes to legislation that will allow dogs/animals to be able to collect through there owners for pain and suffering.

Dogs are citizens in San Francisco, but still property.

164

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
In regards to your brakes, have you maintained them properly? Did you know they were bad and drove anyways? Did you with full knowledge put a dangerous car on the road?

I don’t think dogs are evil but I think they can be exploited to be viscious.

[/quote]

I had the brakes inspected and it was found to be a manufacturing defect. So who do I sue? The brakes or the people who made them?

Dogs are exploited by whom? People. Just as a car cannot be held responsible when it is exploited by the driver, a dog cannot be held responsible for its actions. Just as it takes a person to turn a car into a weapon it takes a person to turn a dog into a weapon.

165

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Dogs are citizens in San Francisco, but still property.

[/quote]

That makes no sense. The concepts of being property and also being a citizen are incongruous. Can dogs vote when they turn 18?

166

[quote]CBassBeer wrote:
IMO, the only people that support BSL are the ones that don’t know anything about dogs. It is ALWAYS the owner’s fault if the dog misbehaves in any way - it has NOTHING to do with the breed. At all. Zero, zilch, nada, nix. The problem is that too many dog owners have no idea what they’re doing.
There is no dog attack problem. It is media hype - newspapers love to report on dog attacks because people are afraid of them.
Unfortunately we have BSL in Germany, too. They don’t kill our dogs, but they make it very hard to keep them. Luckily there is a system where you can have your dog’s character tested - if it passes, it won’t be considered a combat dog. My dog passed this without a problem, because he is the most gentle and loving dog imaginable. Still we face hostility from others on a daily basis. Several neighbors in our apartment building have conspired to mob us into giving away the dog. They went as far as accusing us of letting the dog crap onto the stairway.[/quote]

Good post

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
For me to argue with you would be akin to me taking on one of my administrative assistants. You are a secretary (paralegal) who wishes she were an attorney (CEO).[/quote]

You are a piece of shit…

167

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I’m not trying to be mean here and as a parent I of course understand your feelings however, had you not played Mr. Macho and gone for your gun to go and find the dogs and instead called the proper authorities maybe something would have been done to prevent what happened. You acted on anger and didn’t use your intelligence to resolve what happened. Once you were no longer angry you lost the urge to act.
[/quote]

Actually, several of my neighbors had warned me beforehand that there were two mean Pits that roamed the area in the mornings but I had never seen them and no one seemed to know who owned them so I did not worry about it. One of my neighbors had called the police about those dogs but was told there was no leash law and they would only respond if an actual bite occurred.

Additionally, we lived in an unincorporated area of the county and had no 911 service so non-emergency calls typically took an hour or more to get a response.

Knowing that, I figured the best option was to pursue the dogs myself. Since I was not yet the mean vengeful person I am today the gun was for my protection.

By the time I learned who the owner was several weeks had passed and he had quit letting the dogs run free in the mornings. I mistakenly believed that was a sign of responsibility on the owner’s part so I opted to not pursue it any further. Boy oh boy, was I wrong on that one.

Even after the attack on my son the laws in the county permitted the owner to keep the dogs after a 10 day quarantine and a clear rabies test.

The dogs were euthanized only because of neighborhood pressure, fear his dogs would be brutally killed and a bond requirement levied by his homeowners insurance if he kept the dogs.

168

[quote]DM246 wrote:
zecarlo wrote:
I’m not trying to be mean here and as a parent I of course understand your feelings however, had you not played Mr. Macho and gone for your gun to go and find the dogs and instead called the proper authorities maybe something would have been done to prevent what happened. You acted on anger and didn’t use your intelligence to resolve what happened. Once you were no longer angry you lost the urge to act.

Actually, several of my neighbors had warned me beforehand that there were two mean Pits that roamed the area in the mornings but I had never seen them and no one seemed to know who owned them so I did not worry about it. One of my neighbors had called the police about those dogs but was told there was no leash law and they would only respond if an actual bite occurred.

Additionally, we lived in an unincorporated area of the county and had no 911 service so non-emergency calls typically took an hour or more to get a response.

Knowing that, I figured the best option was to pursue the dogs myself. Since I was not yet the mean vengeful person I am today the gun was for my protection.

By the time I learned who the owner was several weeks had passed and he had quit letting the dogs run free in the mornings. I mistakenly believed that was a sign of responsibility on the owner’s part so I opted to not pursue it any further. Boy oh boy, was I wrong on that one.

Even after the attack on my son the laws in the county permitted the owner to keep the dogs after a 10 day quarantine and a clear rabies test.

The dogs were euthanized only because of neighborhood pressure, fear his dogs would be brutally killed and a bond requirement levied by his homeowners insurance if he kept the dogs.

[/quote]

Honestly I understand how you feel. I just think that individual dog owners should be responsible for their individual dogs. Banning one breed won’t prevent dog attacks. I also believe the risk is overstated. If you look at the number of rotties in the US and then look at how many people have been killed by them in the past 10-20 years it is a fraction of a percentage of the dogs who have killed.

It’s the same with pits. I worry more about child molesters when it comes to my kid than dogs. Like I said, I understand how you feel and I somewhat share your feelings however the difference is that when it comes to dogs behaving badly I don’t focus my anger on the dog but on the owner.

You threatened to shoot the jerk’s dogs; I would have just hit him with a bat a few times and called it even.

169

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
In regards to your brakes, have you maintained them properly? Did you know they were bad and drove anyways? Did you with full knowledge put a dangerous car on the road?

I don’t think dogs are evil but I think they can be exploited to be viscious.

I had the brakes inspected and it was found to be a manufacturing defect. So who do I sue? The brakes or the people who made them?

Dogs are exploited by whom? People. Just as a car cannot be held responsible when it is exploited by the driver, a dog cannot be held responsible for its actions. Just as it takes a person to turn a car into a weapon it takes a person to turn a dog into a weapon. [/quote]

Dogs can act on their own urges, cars can’t. This really is getting old.

I agree with you regarding San Francisco’s laws being kooky but they are what they are.

The brakes, are they your affirmative defense? Have you been charged with anything or was this ruled an accident?

Again, this is why the car analogy is not good.

cars = inanimate
dogs = sentient

And this " So who do I sue? The brakes or the people who made them? " do you even think that was a reasonable statement? Does a brake make a conscious decision, act on a whim, or react upon instinct whether it will work? holey moley.

170

Damn, my awesome penis analogy got caught as the last post on the page before this one. Hopefully my CEO friend will spot it with his amazing hawk like vision.

171

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Honestly I understand how you feel. I just think that individual dog owners should be responsible for their individual dogs. Banning one breed won’t prevent dog attacks. I also believe the risk is overstated. If you look at the number of rotties in the US and then look at how many people have been killed by them in the past 10-20 years it is a fraction of a percentage of the dogs who have killed.

It’s the same with pits. I worry more about child molesters when it comes to my kid than dogs. Like I said, I understand how you feel and I somewhat share your feelings however the difference is that when it comes to dogs behaving badly I don’t focus my anger on the dog but on the owner.

You threatened to shoot the jerk’s dogs; I would have just hit him with a bat a few times and called it even. [/quote]

If I gave the impression I am for banning the breed I apologize. That was not my intent. I am all for educated ownership and the elimination of STOOOPID owners.

The owner of the dogs who attacked my son probably never gave serious consideration to the potential that played out in 1999. If he had been better educated about the possibilities he would have taken precautions to protect his dogs. I can assure you he and I both possess “Ph.D’s” in the subject now.

My thing about shooting his dogs was based on his wife’s action during the attack. According to eyewitnesses she sat her sorry butt on the porch and smoked a cigarette while her dogs mauled my son in plain view.

Hence, I no longer trust the owner to do the right thing so it is incumbent upon me to remove the threat myself. A baseball bat to the owner’s head would have been a nice touch though. ha ha

I agree that it is a small percent of Pits and Rotts that end up on the front page. The majority, if not all, of those cases are undoubtedly due to the owner’s failure to protect the dog(s) against the potential for tragic circumstances.

If it helps, my “execution” policy extends to child molesters (and criminal seeking unauthorized entrance) as well. We had a recently paroled child molester living with his mother a couple of houses down until a few months ago.

GA recently passed a law requiring convicted sex predators to live at least 1000 feet from places where children congregate. Since a school bus stop was located less than 100 feet from his mother’s house he had to go.

I didn’t have to worry about him though. Even before I knew he existed the local mothers in the neighborhood were already letting him know he was under the microscope. Sorry POS was scared to even come outside and check the mail for fear of running into an irate mother. ha ha

172

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.

173

[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Damn, my awesome penis analogy got caught as the last post on the page before this one. Hopefully my CEO friend will spot it with his amazing hawk like vision.[/quote]

Because I am a caring guy and want to make sure you feel validated, I will aknowledge your post. In fact, I laughed out loud. You’re a pretty funny guy. Seriously.

Anyway, I get it now. You follow Ms. October around the forums and give her e-rimjobs.

That’s very admirable. You are a cavalier guy and I applaud your bracing of the fairer sex.

The thing is, I am sitting here agonizing over why I ever engaged such a dynamic duo such as yourselves.

Your witty repertoire cuts like a razor. This combined with her narrow minded, unyielding assertion of an opinion based on a few studies she unearthed to likely either sue someone or bolster BSL is clearly more than I can handle.

Such foolishness and I now see the error in my ways.

However, I guess I should thank you for speeding up the process. I am alarmed when I consider the number of posts I may have made before I came to this revelation. Afterall, my time is very valuable. (Which I think you alread know.)

Anyway, don’t worry about me. Consider me adequately “beat down.” I will retire now to lick my e-wounds.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Franck, suck my balls JackAss.

174

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
Because I am a caring guy and want to make sure you feel validated, I will aknowledge your post. In fact, I laughed out loud. You’re a pretty funny guy. Seriously.[/quote]

Between the two of us, validation shouldn’t be in short supply.

Maybe if she was younger.

Believe me, this isn’t knight in shining armor syndrome. You made yourself look like a tremendous douchebag, and those are the only people I enjoy arguing with anymore.

Tremendously valuable, I’m sure. I hope your time is measured in gold, since the dollar isn’t doing so well. Do your carry your time in TIPs for the sake of safety?

Atleast you left the conversation with as much wit and insight as you came into it with. Consistency is admirable, I guess.

175

I am not a fan of the breed. They are too powerful and the potential for destruction is too high.

I would never ban the breed but I would never own one either.

If one was roaming loose in the backyard I might shoot it.

I was attacked by 4 or 5 dogs when I was out running. They fucked up my clothes and my legs and arm were bleeding superficially. If even one of those dogs was a pitbull I would
have been in some serious trouble.

All dogs have the potential to snap and lash out. When a pitbull does it the damage is far worse than most other breeds.

I know some of you guys have pitbulls and kids and I pray your loving pet never turns on your kid for even a split second.

I would never take that risk with my family.

176

I have a corgi she was bred by breeders who breed house pets not working dogs. If you take her to a field and there are ducks sheep etc. she will instinctively herd them around. I have a friend who owns an English Pointer again as a house pet, it will go on point in the back hard if it sees a toy in the back yard. Anyone who thinks dogs don’t have instincts bred into them is stupid. It stands to reason that a dog bred specifically to fight would be inclined to do the same, unless pits are some how different from all other dogs that were bred for a purpose.

BSL is a good idea and even owners should admit that. The gameness and strength of a pit are almost unmatched, so even a well behaved pit bull if in the right circumstance could do much more damage than the average dog. It is like owning anything that is dangerous, while the likelihood of a pit attacking might be low the damage it will do is likely high. Again people who deny that dogs instinctively do what they have been bred for in the past is probably about as smart as the dog they own.

177

I have not read this entire thread. OctoberGirl, you wrote that the vast majority of pitbull owners want them for their aggression. That is simply not true. The vast majority of pit owners know they have a very powerful, willful, athletic, tough dog. The majority of these owners are responsible, i.e., do not let them go anywhere unleashed, do not want them to hurt anything, etc.

BSL is not a good idea. It is a violation of the Constitution. Dog owners need to be made responsible for the actions of their dogs. If my American Staffordshire hurt a dog or a person I would expect to go to jail. That’s why I never, ever allow my dog to go into any situation where that may be possible. If I am irresponsible I make every pit owner look bad.

The pitbull breeds are a special dog. So are Rotties, Dobermans, etc., and the owners of these dogs need to be responsible and respectful for their dog’s sake and that of the community. These dogs are special because of their power and athleticism, that’s why I love them. I love them so much that I will never put my dog in a situation where it may hurt another dog or person.

Again, these pieces of garbage who own them to fight them or make themselves look tougher are the ones who should be legislated against. Breed Specific is B.S. It’s the owners who need to be punished, and punished severely. A guy whose dog mauls a kid gets less jail time, if any, than a guy caught with a little bit of dope. There’s something wrong there.

BSL and the government needs to get specific and legislate against the bad owners.

178

[quote]Dweezil wrote:

Believe me, this isn’t knight in shining armor syndrome. You made yourself look like a tremendous douchebag, and those are the only people I enjoy arguing with anymore.

[/quote]

Tremendous douchebag? Well I guess that is a matter of opinion although I am amused by the terminology. How about douchebag extraordinaire?

I would state that looking back I think I acted like an ass but the proverbial cat is out of the barn, so to speak.

Truthfully (que violins) I had an emotional response to that video just like I did the time I was called into the shelter and there was a little red brindle literally scarred from head to toe including some recent wounds.

She was in a pen, soon to be euthanized. I kneeled down by the fence and she sat and leaned against it. I scratched her and told the lady to let her out. She looked at me like I was crazy and did it anyway.

I crouched down and the dog curled up in between by legs, sat down, and raised her head up at me. I scratched her neck and talked to her a little and left pretty upset.

The dog was probably stolen and being used to bait. Without details on her background and given her physical appearance I knew adoption was out of the question, and frankly, I was unwilling to bring her into my home for the same reasons.

Should I have taken it out on this woman? Absolutely not. I apologized for my condescension and will further apologize for being a “douchebag.”

The bottom line is I have had way too many conversations with people like her, from my front yard to legislative sessions, and there is no reasoning with them. Unfortunately, there are some of them in position to make law.

Earlier it was asked what the answer is.

I seek out and support candidates who think BSL is BS and will keep it out of my community.

I also try to educate everyone who will listen. Typically, most people in my community don’t even know what a “pitbull” is and often ask if our dogs are boxers or something. The only reason they know anything about “pitbulls” is they have read about them in the paper.

Owning one of these dogs is a tremendous responsibility. I don’t have a silver bullet but do know it’s not BSL.

BTW, great post trumbeh.

179

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
Tremendous douchebag? Well I guess that is a matter of opinion although I am amused by the terminology. How about douchebag extraordinaire?[/quote]

I’m not sure about douchebag extraordinaire. How about King Douchebag? An ex called me that as we broke up. It certainly has pedigree (I was called it, after all), I think you should take up the mantle.

[quote]
The dog was probably stolen and being used to bait. Without details on her background and given her physical appearance I knew adoption was out of the question, and frankly, I was unwilling to bring her into my home for the same reasons.[/quote]

The answer to the “pitbull problem” would be legislation to stiffen penalties for organized dog fighting, and an emphasis on “puppy stores” screening dog owners (individual breeders already have a pretty lengthy process; if they’re good breeders, anyway) akin to what the Humane Society or ASPCA does when they look at records to see if the person has put an animal up for adoption before. Of course, this would wreak havoc on that ‘industry’, but the people that want to be dog owners will be able to procure animals regardless and it would cut down on these issues.

As for people who are looking at losing dogs they currently own under some sort of newly proposed ban where they live I don’t see it as being incredibly difficult to get an injunction from a judge if they’re specifically coming after you. Hell, you could probably get a TRO against the municipality animal control.

180

So…what’d you think of the video?

181

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
So…what’d you think of the video?[/quote]

It was very thought provoking.

182

Here’s the video response on youtube:

>>>VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES<<<

If you wanted to see what some dog-on-human attacks look like, they’re in the video, but you may be surprised at which breed of dog goes with each attack image.

The video’s not all about graphic images though, and I think it is worth watching.

There are only a handful of “bad” images, but I think it was tastefully done, and the ending is great.