[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Please pray for this young lady... She was attacked by 5 dogs while jogging yesterday morning (Page 3 of 6)
|
Quoted: Define "attacks". Bites? No. Maulings? Yes. Maulings requiring hospitalization? Yes. Deaths? Yes. Also, given their numbers, this makes them disproportionately more dangerous than other breeds, empirically. Or, there's the theory that basset hound maulings are covered up by the breedist mass media, who has it in for the lovable pits. Quoted: Quoted: Do pit-bulls really commit more attacks as a breed Define "attacks". Bites? No. Maulings? Yes. Maulings requiring hospitalization? Yes. Deaths? Yes. Also, given their numbers, this makes them disproportionately more dangerous than other breeds, empirically. Or, there's the theory that basset hound maulings are covered up by the breedist mass media, who has it in for the lovable pits. Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. |
|
Quoted: Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. Your dogs are Dindus aren't they. |
|
Quoted: Your dogs are Dindus aren't they. Quoted: Quoted: Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. Your dogs are Dindus aren't they. No, but you would be scared of them anyway. I am sure! |
|
Quoted: No they are not. Look up the stats and then we can have a conversation. Your emotion and pearl clutching are getting the best of you. It's not worth the trouble dude. Already three pages of AIDS from guys who say that the "Dindu pit apologists will ruin this thread", when there seems to be literally zero "pro-pit" sentiments expressed thus far. Certain people just have an axe to grind against these dogs. (Removed CoC #1 -40xb) |
|
Quoted: It's not worth the trouble dude. Already three pages of AIDS from guys who say that the "Dindu pit apologists will ruin this thread", when there seems to be literally zero "pro-pit" sentiments expressed thus far. Certain people just have an axe to grind against these dogs. (Removed CoC #1 -40xb) LOL! So now if you don't like pit bulls you're a religious nut? You can't help but troll can you?  |
|
That is a really horrible story to hear. I hope she recovers quickly, and the doctors can repair the damage the dogs did so she can live a normal life. Being such a young woman, I can’t imagine the emotional turmoil she must be going through having been physically mutilated by a pack of violent dogs. Owners should be arrested and put on trial for the violent crimes against her, just as if they were doing it with their own hands. |
|
Quoted: LOL! So now if you don't like pit bulls you're a religious nut? You can't help but troll can you? Why don't you add something factual to the discussion vs. acting like a grade schooler on the playground? Your contributions to this thread are pitiful. How old are you?? |
|
Quoted: It's not worth the trouble dude. Already three pages of AIDS from guys who say that the "Dindu pit apologists will ruin this thread", when there seems to be literally zero "pro-pit" sentiments expressed thus far. Certain people just have an axe to grind against these dogs. (Removed CoC #1 -40xb) |
|
Prayers just sent. I hope she isn't scarred too badly from this once she heals up, both physically and mentally. My little .380 I usually carry while walking is at S&W being worked on, and the only other gun I have for concealed carry is a S&W 9mm compact with 7 rounds, but it's kind of heavy for the gym shorts I walk in, so I at least have the expandable steel baton for some protection. But I miss carrying the gun since that one mutt dog almost sunk its teeth in to my calf and has made me very leery on my walks. A friends wife has had dogs that were loose come at her and her two hounds that she walks on leashes in the morning, and she used the LED flashlight to blind them and they stayed back, but I think her husband said she does carry her pistol now. I see young couples out with their children in strollers or on bikes and think about how fast a dog or dogs could attack, and feel like asking if they carry mace or anything with them. |
|
Quoted: Why don't you add something factual to the discussion vs. acting like a grade schooler on the playground? Your contributions to this thread are pitiful. How old are you?? Dude's post count is like entirely in GD. Guy's a pro. His incoherent screechings are unmatched. |
|
Quoted: As a member of the GSD master race, all I can say is that most pibbles I've met in real life are just fine, and almost every mauling story I've ever seen has been pitbulls. Maybe owners of violent dogs should be charged as though they themselves committed whatever act their dog did? I don't think so, any dog is capable of biting someone. Its not reasonable to hold people criminally liable with no intent or negligence. In some cases there may be negligence, but not always. Civilly liable yes of course, how would you feel going to prison and getting a felony after years of being a good citizen just because your dog bit someone ? Who would be willing to own a dog ? Now possibly you could charge them if their dog has had documented past incidents, as at that point they know their dog is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it. That might be reasonable. |
|
65% of deaths by pit bul While pits comprise 6.5% of the population. All pits are probably a pit mutt but thats like arguing about hound breads. They're hounds. Semantics between blue tick and walkers aren't that important, unless you're a houndsman. |
|
Quoted: Why don't you add something factual to the discussion vs. acting like a grade schooler on the playground? Your contributions to this thread are pitiful. How old are you?? Many here have provided proof, but it really doesn't matter does it? You won't admit they are shit dogs regardless of what is provided. |
|
Quoted: I've had a number of aggressive dogs run up on me while out running. I'm more concerned about them than getting hit by a car Yeah, growing up I had to deal with aggressive dogs more than anything while I was out running, riding my bike, or delivering papers. There was a Collie a Boston Terrier and a couple of GSDs that wanted to kill me LOL! Somehow I have managed not to hate those breeds! |
|
Quoted: I don't think so, any dog is capable of biting someone. Its not reasonable to hold people criminally liable with no intent or negligence. In some cases there may be negligence, but not always. Civility liable yes of course, how would you feel going to prison and getting a felony after years of being a good citizen just because your dog bit someone ? Who would be willing to own a dog ? Now possibly you could charge them if their dog has had documented past incidents, as at that point they know their dog is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it. That might be reasonable. |
|
Quoted: This. Owner wants to be badass by proxy by getting a stupid mutt, well they can be a defendant by proxy now From what I'm able to gather, it seems these may have been abandoned dogs running feral in the neighborhood. But if there is an owner, they should face consequences. Quoted: 65% of deaths by pit bul While pits comprise 6.5% of the population. All pits are probably a pit mutt but thats like arguing about hound breads. They're hounds. Semantics between blue tick and walkers aren't that important, unless you're a houndsman. While I don't argue that statistically pitbulls make up the vast majority of fatal, and serious non-fatal dog maulings, the aggregate amount of dog maulings in general is statistically insignificant in comparison to literally almost any unnatural cause of death. I always laugh when people advocate so strongly for bans, since if you fall for that line of thinking, you also have to acknowledge it can be applied to almost anything. |
|
Quoted: Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. Pit Bulls ARE a type of dog. Formal breeds often considered to be of the pit bull-type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. |
|
Kill all land sharks. Pitbulls are not dogs. When society collapses Mad Max style and vigilante violence ensues, it will be open season on these canine demons. Pitbull hunter will become a new profession. Prayers for the girl and her family. Good thing someone had mace. If you're going jogging without a gun, at least carry some spray. Who owns FIVE of these damn things, anyway? That's worse than having a pack of wolves in your backyard. |
|
Quoted: Why don't you add something factual to the discussion vs. acting like a grade schooler on the playground? > crickets < |
|
Quoted: Maybe it would make people not so willing to own certain types of dogs? If your dog gets out and it mauls a kid, your years of being a good citizen mean nothing to them and their family. Only your poor choices and negligence. Quoted: Quoted: I don't think so, any dog is capable of biting someone. Its not reasonable to hold people criminally liable with no intent or negligence. In some cases there may be negligence, but not always. Civility liable yes of course, how would you feel going to prison and getting a felony after years of being a good citizen just because your dog bit someone ? Who would be willing to own a dog ? Now possibly you could charge them if their dog has had documented past incidents, as at that point they know their dog is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it. That might be reasonable. Any dog can bite. Do you have a dog ? How'd you like to go to jail because your Golden got scared and bit someone ? Maybe your kid accidentally let it out through the front door. Maybe the repairman working in your kitchen got bit because your dog was startled. The idea that everything should be someones fault and someone should be punished is ridiculous. Everyone wants that until its them. Reckless behavior is one thing, but not everything bad is from intent or reckless action. Paying for damages is one thing, that is just being responsible to repair what you broke. BTW, I don't have any pits and don't want any. That isn't the point. |
|
Quoted: Any dog can bite. Do you have a dog ? How'd you like to go to jail because your Golden got scared and bit someone ? Maybe your kid accidentally let it out through the front door. Maybe the repairman working in your kitchen got bit because your dog was startled. The idea that everything should be someones fault and someone should be punished is ridiculous. Everyone wants that until its them. Reckless behavior is one thing, but not everything bad is from intent or reckless action. Paying for damages is one thing, that is just being responsible to repair what you broke. BTW, I don't have any pits and don't want any. That isn't the point. |
|
Quoted: No they are not. Look up the stats and then we can have a conversation. Your emotion and pearl clutching are getting the best of you. Quoted: Quoted: And here comes the White Knight. Look a few posts above you. They are more dangerous. No they are not. Look up the stats and then we can have a conversation. Your emotion and pearl clutching are getting the best of you. Well, I looked up the stats. Here is what a quick Google search turned up. They were all pretty consistent in their conclusions. Interestingly, I didn't find any stats that seemed to contradict the general consensus. Pit bulls responsible for 66% of dog bit fatalities. Pit bulls cause more serious injuries. Pit bulls account for highest percentage of reported bites. Now, I know you don't really want to "have a conversation" based on stats because you've preemptively dismissed any stats contrary to your position as inaccurate or misrepresented. Maybe you would like to offer up some stats that you would be willing to accept? ETA To be completely fair, I also think other aggressive breeds like GSDs are overrated as pets as well. Most GSD owners that I know who got one from a breeder because they are "practically police dogs" have asshole dogs that are ticking time bombs. Most people have no effing clue how to properly raise a dog, let alone the time and desire to do so. They should stick to the family friendly breeds or at least buy smaller assholes that couldn't maul their way out of a wet paper bag. |
|
Quoted: The dog is your responsibility. Not the kid's or the handyman's. When a dog attacks it is someone's fault, usually the owner's. I don't want someone going to prison for their dog nipping someone, but if some kid has to grow up without a face because of your dog, then you can rot for all I care. Quoted: Quoted: Any dog can bite. Do you have a dog ? How'd you like to go to jail because your Golden got scared and bit someone ? Maybe your kid accidentally let it out through the front door. Maybe the repairman working in your kitchen got bit because your dog was startled. The idea that everything should be someones fault and someone should be punished is ridiculous. Everyone wants that until its them. Reckless behavior is one thing, but not everything bad is from intent or reckless action. Paying for damages is one thing, that is just being responsible to repair what you broke. BTW, I don't have any pits and don't want any. That isn't the point. Civil liability should fall to the owner. There is no criminal intent or criminal behavior however. Barring certain circumstances. In the world you describe I doubt I would ever be willing to own a dog. That is not reasonable. Bad enough people are waiting to sue you for any reason they can find. Now its prosecution. Should you go to prison for ordinary car accidents ? Not talking about recklessness, DUI, etc. How is that any different ? |
|
Quoted: Civil liability should fall to the owner. There is no criminal intent or criminal behavior however. Barring certain circumstances. In the world you describe I doubt I would ever be willing to own a dog. That is not reasonable. Bad enough people are waiting to sue you for any reason they can find. Now its prosecution. Should you go to prison for ordinary car accidents ? Not talking about recklessness, DUI, etc. How is that any different ? Are you really that worried about your dog severely maiming or killing someone though? |
|
Quoted: I don't think so, any dog is capable of biting someone. Its not reasonable to hold people criminally liable with no intent or negligence. In some cases there may be negligence, but not always. Civilly liable yes of course, how would you feel going to prison and getting a felony after years of being a good citizen just because your dog bit someone ? Who would be willing to own a dog ? Now possibly you could charge them if their dog has had documented past incidents, as at that point they know their dog is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it. That might be reasonable. Fair enough, so we should ONLY criminally charge Pit Bull (and similar) owners. If your pit bull attacks someone, enjoy prison. If your Shitzu attacks someone enjoy paying their medical bills. Seems reasonable to me. |
|
Quoted: Fair enough, so we should ONLY criminally charge Pit Bull (and similar) owners. If your pit bull attacks someone, enjoy prison. If your Shitzu attacks someone enjoy paying their medical bills. Seems reasonable to me. Quoted: Quoted: I don't think so, any dog is capable of biting someone. Its not reasonable to hold people criminally liable with no intent or negligence. In some cases there may be negligence, but not always. Civilly liable yes of course, how would you feel going to prison and getting a felony after years of being a good citizen just because your dog bit someone ? Who would be willing to own a dog ? Now possibly you could charge them if their dog has had documented past incidents, as at that point they know their dog is dangerous and they choose to do nothing about it. That might be reasonable. Fair enough, so we should ONLY criminally charge Pit Bull (and similar) owners. If your pit bull attacks someone, enjoy prison. If your Shitzu attacks someone enjoy paying their medical bills. Seems reasonable to me. When did I say anything about different types of dogs ? I don't favor automatic prosecution for any dog attack. Perhaps with certain circumstances it might be reasonable. Namely that would with documented prior incidents, at that point you know its dangerous you probably are negligent if it happens again. |
|
Quoted: Having said all that, now I'll piss some people off. It seems these type stories are only made widely public when it involves Pit Bulls. Attacks like this happen all over the world and involve all breeds. No. Pitt bulls are FAR more likely to do this than any other breed. Especially when you consider the "per capita" rates. And most dogs are not even capable of killing like pitt bulls are. |
|
Quoted: You bring up good points and I am obviously not an attorney. Are you really that worried about your dog severely maiming or killing someone though? Quoted: Quoted: Civil liability should fall to the owner. There is no criminal intent or criminal behavior however. Barring certain circumstances. In the world you describe I doubt I would ever be willing to own a dog. That is not reasonable. Bad enough people are waiting to sue you for any reason they can find. Now its prosecution. Should you go to prison for ordinary car accidents ? Not talking about recklessness, DUI, etc. How is that any different ? Are you really that worried about your dog severely maiming or killing someone though? Maiming and mauling ? Not really. I don't think my dogs would do that. Biting someone ? You never know. And a good solid bite on the leg from a larger dog just might be enough to make some prosecutor think its aggravated assault level rather than simple misdemeanor assault. It can happen with any dog. My dogs don't escape, as I have a good fence and I'm very careful. When other kids come over to play with my kids I put them up. I take precautions. But anything can happen. Even if its a once every several years fluke when your kid opens both doors so the dog runs through the house and out the door. I just don't like the trend so many people have to want everything prosecuted whether its a truck driver doing his job who slides on ice and rear ends an old lady, or an ordianry dog owner who didn't know his dog would bite ( they all can/will they're animals ) Civil liability is how normal everyday events should be solved, making the victim right financially rather than punitive behavior legally ruining people with criminal convictions. |
|
Lancaster was taken to the hospital in Memphis with injuries to her head and face. She’s been released from the hospital but her grandmother said she will need plastic surgery. |
|
Quoted: No. Pitt bulls are FAR more likely to do this than any other breed. Especially when you consider the "per capita" rates. And most dogs are not even capable of killing like pitt bulls are. Quoted: Quoted: Having said all that, now I'll piss some people off. It seems these type stories are only made widely public when it involves Pit Bulls. Attacks like this happen all over the world and involve all breeds. No. Pitt bulls are FAR more likely to do this than any other breed. Especially when you consider the "per capita" rates. And most dogs are not even capable of killing like pitt bulls are. I don't like them. I've seen numerous studies that show they are actually less likely to bite though. However the damage is obviously worse when they do. |
|
Quoted: Pit Bulls ARE a type of dog. No shit ! Formal breeds often considered to be of the pit bull-type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Considered by who? The news media? People in general? Those that know nothing about dogs and dogs breeding? Yeah. Here is the thing that you are missing. Let's start with a few FACTS OK? If the dog in front of you weighs over 50 pounds, you DON"T have a Pit Bull OK? I don't give a fuck what the news media or the uninformed call them OK? IF the news media and uninformed/ignorant want to call a cross or mutt a Pit Bull they are free to do so but that doesn't mean some don't know better . " Pit Bull Type " was just a little concession given to those that know what's up ......... instead of calling EVERY cross and mutt a " Pit Bull " , Pit Bull Type came about. BUT, here is the thing. NONE of the dogs you mentioned actually look like a real Pit Bull..... because they are not. If you take the real Pitt Bull and put it beside those breeds you have mentioned, the differences would be striking. Just because the real Pit Bull was used somewhere in the breeding of these canines, and some idiots don't know what a Pit Bull is, doesn't mean some of us adopt their erroneous titles. Since the Rottweiler was extensively used in the creation of the Doberman, I guess the Doberman is a Rottweiler type dog.... or perhaps since the Greyhound was used in the development of the Doberman , I guess the Dobe could be called a Greyhound type dog. Many more examples I could give. Most people that know anything about dogs would readily agree that the Rottie and Greyhound are separate breeds from the Doberman and would not call a Doberman a Rottie or Greyhound type dog. Not the same for a Pitt. A real Pit is a medium sized dog not weighing over 50 pounds. They have a longer muzzle than the breeds you mentioned...... so they can breath well.... they were bred for that. They have a MUCH lighter build and are MUCH more athletic and athletic looking that the breeds you have mentioned. What are often called "Pit Bulls" are mongrels and crosses created by ignorant people. The ONLY thing these type people wanted out of the real Pit Bull was their drive, courage, tenacity, hardness, etc. all good traits. They crossed them with much larger dogs to gain size, some crossed them with known aggressive dogs of larger breeds to fit their warped ideas, I would bet that genetically if some of these dogs were tested they would actually test low on REAL PIT BULL genetics. These are facts. You can argue them all day long but it doesn't change the facts. The dogs causing all the trouble are mutts and crosses...... not the "Pit Bull". Quoted: Quoted: Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. Pit Bulls ARE a type of dog. No shit ! Formal breeds often considered to be of the pit bull-type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Considered by who? The news media? People in general? Those that know nothing about dogs and dogs breeding? Yeah. Here is the thing that you are missing. Let's start with a few FACTS OK? If the dog in front of you weighs over 50 pounds, you DON"T have a Pit Bull OK? I don't give a fuck what the news media or the uninformed call them OK? IF the news media and uninformed/ignorant want to call a cross or mutt a Pit Bull they are free to do so but that doesn't mean some don't know better . " Pit Bull Type " was just a little concession given to those that know what's up ......... instead of calling EVERY cross and mutt a " Pit Bull " , Pit Bull Type came about. BUT, here is the thing. NONE of the dogs you mentioned actually look like a real Pit Bull..... because they are not. If you take the real Pitt Bull and put it beside those breeds you have mentioned, the differences would be striking. Just because the real Pit Bull was used somewhere in the breeding of these canines, and some idiots don't know what a Pit Bull is, doesn't mean some of us adopt their erroneous titles. Since the Rottweiler was extensively used in the creation of the Doberman, I guess the Doberman is a Rottweiler type dog.... or perhaps since the Greyhound was used in the development of the Doberman , I guess the Dobe could be called a Greyhound type dog. Many more examples I could give. Most people that know anything about dogs would readily agree that the Rottie and Greyhound are separate breeds from the Doberman and would not call a Doberman a Rottie or Greyhound type dog. Not the same for a Pitt. A real Pit is a medium sized dog not weighing over 50 pounds. They have a longer muzzle than the breeds you mentioned...... so they can breath well.... they were bred for that. They have a MUCH lighter build and are MUCH more athletic and athletic looking that the breeds you have mentioned. What are often called "Pit Bulls" are mongrels and crosses created by ignorant people. The ONLY thing these type people wanted out of the real Pit Bull was their drive, courage, tenacity, hardness, etc. all good traits. They crossed them with much larger dogs to gain size, some crossed them with known aggressive dogs of larger breeds to fit their warped ideas, I would bet that genetically if some of these dogs were tested they would actually test low on REAL PIT BULL genetics. These are facts. You can argue them all day long but it doesn't change the facts. The dogs causing all the trouble are mutts and crosses...... not the "Pit Bull". |
|
Quoted: Well, I looked up the stats. Here is what a quick Google search turned up. They were all pretty consistent in their conclusions. Interestingly, I didn't find any stats that seemed to contradict the general consensus. Pit bulls responsible for 66% of dog bit fatalities. Pit bulls cause more serious injuries. Pit bulls account for highest percentage of reported bites. Now, I know you don't really want to "have a conversation" based on stats because you've preemptively dismissed any stats contrary to your position as inaccurate or misrepresented. Maybe you would like to offer up some stats that you would be willing to accept? ETA To be completely fair, I also think other aggressive breeds like GSDs are overrated as pets as well. Most GSD owners that I know who got one from a breeder because they are "practically police dogs" have asshole dogs that are ticking time bombs. Most people have no effing clue how to properly raise a dog, let alone the time and desire to do so. They should stick to the family friendly breeds or at least buy smaller assholes that couldn't maul their way out of a wet paper bag. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And here comes the White Knight. Look a few posts above you. They are more dangerous. No they are not. Look up the stats and then we can have a conversation. Your emotion and pearl clutching are getting the best of you. Well, I looked up the stats. Here is what a quick Google search turned up. They were all pretty consistent in their conclusions. Interestingly, I didn't find any stats that seemed to contradict the general consensus. Pit bulls responsible for 66% of dog bit fatalities. Pit bulls cause more serious injuries. Pit bulls account for highest percentage of reported bites. Now, I know you don't really want to "have a conversation" based on stats because you've preemptively dismissed any stats contrary to your position as inaccurate or misrepresented. Maybe you would like to offer up some stats that you would be willing to accept? ETA To be completely fair, I also think other aggressive breeds like GSDs are overrated as pets as well. Most GSD owners that I know who got one from a breeder because they are "practically police dogs" have asshole dogs that are ticking time bombs. Most people have no effing clue how to properly raise a dog, let alone the time and desire to do so. They should stick to the family friendly breeds or at least buy smaller assholes that couldn't maul their way out of a wet paper bag. You should probably find stats from a more unbiased organization. Dogbites.org is an organization that is to "pitbulls" as Mothers Demand Action is to firearms; the founder Colleen Lynn manipulates the #s to form her own answers. She pulls the same shit as Shannon Watts and in the process makes a hefty living at it. |
|
Quoted: Numbers of actual " Pit Bulls" isn't the same as numbers of " Pit Bull Type" dogs. The numbers of actual real "Pit Bulls" is much smaller than the crosses and mutts out there. You do realize that 90% of the population can't tell a Pit Bull from a Cane Corso, Dogo and several other breeds right? Not to mention all the mutts that are identified as a Pit Bull. No true scotsman. No dogs are pits when they're eating babies, all dogs are pits when they're lovable family pets. Kumbaya. I guess anyone with a drop of white in them doesn't qualify for racial crime statistics, by that slippery standard. It's a fun game, isn't it? |