Family Pit Bulls Killing Own Kids!

I've owned more dogs than I can remember very well. Lots of hounds, several English Mastiffs, Lab Mixes of various flavors, etc.

The dog I remember most vividly as a bad - bad idea (in retrospect) for me was an Akita. It grew to be about 150 lbs. and he was a good dog around most folks, but the akita and my uncle never hit it off. One day my uncle was here around the farm and for whatever unknown reason, my akita decided to jump him - tried to go for my uncle's throat. He put his arm up, dog got in on him, grabbed his forearm and started shaking my uncle like a rag doll (this is all heresay because I was at work.)

When I drove home, I see Shogun (the akita) tied to the carport and covered in blood, my wife comes running out of the house screaming and babbling incoherantly and I was worried the dog was hurt or something and wondering with that much blood why didn't she take him to the vet - but he seemed happy and spry enough, so I was trying to piece things together.

Eventually I'm able to make out "uncle" and "attacked" and glean some measure of what transpired -- my grandmother who lives next door to me had rushed my uncle to the ER with his forearm hanging in ribbons and both radius and ulna exposed from his elbow to wrist.

I shook my head and asked why my grandfather hadn't shot the dog as I walked inside for my shotgun, and she told me she hadn't let my grandfather shoot him because he was a good dog, and he'd tried, but she stood between Papa and the dog and told him if he shot the dog he'd have to shoot her too ... (so my grandfather had left disgusted).

To shorten things -- My uncle was in microsurgery for about 8 hours getting his arm rebuilt - the dog had basically torn all the meat off the bones from elbow to wrist where my uncle put his arm across his throat.

We took the dog to the vet - vet did a 7 day evaluation then had the dog put down and did an autopsy - turned out the Akita had a golf-ball sized tumor in his brain. I dunno if the tumor mattered to his erratic behavior, but I figure it didn't help things any.

My uncle regained about 75-80% use of his left arm.

Personally - as bad as this may sound, but I was glad that when the dog snapped - he attacked my uncle. If he had to attack anyone, at least it was family.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Just hold every pit owner responsible for manslaughter when their dogs kill and mame,pit owner numbers will drop and irresponsible slobs who let their pets attack children can rot in prison where they belong.Any dog owner of any breed should be held responsible,there is no excuse.



If only this could become reality. I helped get a ban passed locally on Pit Bulls about 20 years ago which has expanded to many surrounding towns. We have had a problem with them here because of illegal aliens, drugs, gangs, and stupid people.
Even in the light of the ban they are still all around even killing the innocent on their own property. Then we as taxpayers get to foot the bill for legal fees and funerals.
The Pit Bull owners just instantly deny ownership and responsibility. Therefore free to kill. It's the only way I know of that your property can cause death and you can say "who me" washing your hands of it.
An Enforceable responsibility law would change some attitudes.

Another pet peeve is auto insurance which is required by law in this state. But BUT we have the highest uninsured motorist rate in the state, SO we need to carry Uninsured Motorist Coverage and PIP at higher rates to cover our rears for car wrecks.
 
Guns dont have a mind of there own. A loaded gun can set on a table, safety off, pointed at me for hours, days or longer and never will go off until someone pulls the trigger. Guns must have human interaction to kill.

A dog on the other hand can be a family pet, love kids and take walks in the park for years. One day something can trigger it with out cause and it can attack without interaction from a human. As mentioned above the pit will not stop.

I have killed a couple pits that came around my place in the past. Others that come around will get the same. My families life and any other human life is far more valuable that ANY dog or other animal. I am not taking chances.
 
Quote:
As mentioned above the pit will not stop.



That's a generalization just like the anti-gunners use.
"Assault weapons have no place in our society. They were made for one thing and that is the killing of as many people as possible. They have no use for hunting. They'll blow a deer to pieces." Blah blah blah

It looks like nobody is going to change their minds here regardless of facts.
 
Here's some statistics I found from a US and Canadian research study on dog-bites:

I know there are exceptions to all these rules and such, but it seems to me that if 74% of all attacks are caused by these 3 breeds, that's a pretty disproportionate segment of the market share - especially given the extremely small proportion of homes that actually have pit bulls or the other breeds to start with. If Pit Bulls, et. al., make up 5% - and likely much less of pet-homes, but still amount to 74% of attacks by number -- that's just staggering to me.


Personally, I also don't think comparing dogs to guns is anything even remotely like a rational argument. A dog, even a well trained one, still has a mind, a will, and the ability to self-motivate on it's own. A gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool.

I'm not saying these dogs have no place, nor that in a loving, nurturing, and firm household with a family structure that understands a dog's pack culture and has a clearly defined alpha (who is NOT the dog), then the dogs can be great. But in a weak family structure where the dog doesn't have a firm spot within the hierarchy, I feel it's an accident waiting to happen.

Here's the statistical findings:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

Quote:

The dogs that are most responsible:
Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here: ( http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf ) to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."


 
From that statisticans article above, this blurb really stuck out in my mind:

This guy isn't pro or con - for any breed, he's just running the actual recorded numbers and citing the risks associated from those numbers. It could well be that from this day on a pit bull terrier doesn't attack another person for the next 20 years and bassett hounds really go on a maiming and murder spree. But I wouldn't put money on that.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

Quote:

The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any otehrs, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed -- and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.


 
Again I feel horible for the people in this case and want to say I am talking about the problem as a whole.The problem is that not all people are willing to do the work that is needed to know how to handle a powerful breed. Their are alot of people how want to own a particular breed but do not do the reasearch and do not put in the training. As a result accidents happen and people get hurt the lack of training and socialization can create a dangerous dog. The breed is not the problem the owners are usually the cause for the attack, This is a view shared by the center of disease control. The other problem is that you can not tell know what kind of dog is in the lineage of the offending dog. Many times people think that a dog looks a certain way that it must be a pit bull. Many pitbulls do not come with papers some do, but many do not. So how do they know what kind of genes a dog has. They will say that a dog has general traits it is a pit when in fact many times it is not. Check out this site.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
I was actually going to use the clifton study in a paper wrote recently but looked into the study and found that it was very flawed and his numbers do not match with the cdc numbers. I therefore could not use it as credible data and could not find it except at a biased website.
(from the website dog bite law where the report can be found)
" Meet your host:
Attorney Kenneth Phillips is the author of this web site. He has a unique law practice: he represents only people who have been bitten by a dog. His clients include children and adults throughout the United States."

I agree if a dog attacks unprovoked it should be put down immediatly. If any of my dogs gave me a reason to think they were dangerous I would get the old 12 gauge out and handle it. I also did the research before I got my animals and also spent the money on traing. This is another website on temperment test and how a particular breed scores.
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html
All I am saying is to generalize and stereotype in life is a very slippery slope.
 
What numbers were the CDC pulling and across what criteria?

Mr. Clifton cites up front that he's not listing every single nip recorded from every dog - only cases that resulted in permanant maiming, disability or death as a result of dog attacks - and says that's what his numbers reflect.
 
Dogs like to bite me. Don't know why. I love dogs. But, they still like to take a nip from time to time. I have been bitten by an Austrailian Shepard, a Welch Corgy (Sp), and a Pit cross. The Pit owner was very close at hand and squelched any further biting. The Ausi Shepard was put in the house before I left the home I was visiting that time. They thought it was funny old shep nailed me. "Oh, he never bit anyone in the past." "Funny he bit you." I informed them if I didn't make it back to the truck unscabed, I would carry their precious pet back up on the porch for them before I left. The iron was in the truck. The Corqy was gnawing on a bone and didn't appreciate my playful advavces. Live and learn. The point is, being bitten isn't the issue. Children being KILLED is. I have been bitten, still here to talk about it. A dead child is absolutely the most unthinkable instance imaginable. By the way, the afore mentioned Pit took a dirt nap the very next day. After it attacked the mail carrier's car. ANY breed that will carry an attack to the death, has no place in our society. There is no arguement. Manslaughter is manslaughter. There is vehicular homicide, why not something to cover vicious dogs? Any "pet" killing a defenseless child should carry the same consequences as if the owner themself did the killing. By the way, I am pro death sentence in our judicial system. I don't believe in warehousing killers of any sort. Loving a breed of dog is fine. I love our dogs like the rest of the world. But owning a living ,breathing, 150lb potentially dangerous animal has a tremendous amount of responsibility attached to it.
 
Dog creek you are correct if your dog attacks someone you are responsible period. I zero tolerance for people who do not train thier animals. And less for people who can not control them. But that goes for he owner of a 10 pound pomerian who is out of control also. As far as the CDC the have the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program and it monitors people who come into the hospital for treatment. Mr. Cliftons numbers come from media reports and do not reflect the situation fully so I do not think they hold alot of water. For instance the clifton report shows that chow and chow mixes account for 165 incidents from 1982-2007 and if you look up the state of texas from 1996-2002 there where 140 severe attacks involving that breed and it mixes. The clifton study is flawed especially since it is based off media reports the media that miss reports on dog attacks so frequently.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/08/prwehb549276.htm
Bottom line is a dog is an animal and people need to control them. But to institute breed bans is the probably the wrong solution to stupid people owning an animal. It sucks when someone gets hurt but people need to take responsiblity for their actions and the actions of things in their care. If your dog bites your are responsible. If your kid gets into your guns and blows someones head off you are responsible. If your dog is killing cats and attacking other dogs what makes you think it is a good idea to have that animal in a house with a child. I hope these aren't the same people leaving loaded guns around for kids to play with.
 
I dunno - I honestly can't say that I'm in favor of holding a dog's owner responsible as if they'd done the killing themselves.

I wouldn't mind a hefty fine, maybe a mandatory dog education class, and probation/community service. But sentencing an otherwise law-abiding person who may never have done anything wrong -- to a felony conviction where he can't own any guns anymore, can't vote, trouble with finding a job, etc. and everything else that goes along with felony convictions -- I just think that's a little too much.

fines and probation/community service sure -- felony for the owner - that's very harsh.

I like to think that most owners who's dogs attack someone are very empathetic and sympathetic towards the person attacked, and their respective families. I think there are some folks out there who may just honestly love a breed and want it for good reasons - like trying to prove it's not a bad breed.

I just see over-penalizing the owners as ruining 2 people's lives.

And in my case personally where my akita attacked my uncle - we killed the dog immediately after the vet's mandatory 7 day observation period, and an autopsy revealed he had a brain tumor. My uncle wasn't killed fortunately, but I think there's too many variables in play with another living, breathing organism to blame it's actions directly on the folks it lives with.
 
Sure, let 'em off. There's no responsibility anywhere else in our society, why should there be when your animal kills or maims someone. Hell, let's let drunk drivers off too. After all, I'm sure most of them empathize with their victims. They didn't really mean it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif Come on dude, how about some personal responsibility? If you want to own a dog that has the potential to seriously harm or kill someone, then you should be prepared to reap the consequences should that happen. That's plain and simple in my mind. If you run someone down in a drunken stupor, you should spend the rest of your life (and it should probably be short anyway) in a cell. If you rape and murder small children, you should burn in the firey pit of a man-made hell. If your dog, your poor, misunderstood, fluffy killing machine kills or maims a kid, then you should serve a sentence equivalent to what you'd serve if you did it. After all, you willing and knowlingly got the dog and kept it. Don't be naive, some dogs are bred to kill. I won't try to tell someone that they can't own one of these breeds, but I do expect that the owner live up to his/her end of the bargain and assume responsibility for that dog's actions. We have way too many "get out of jail free" cards in this country already. I can't believe that I'm reading a request for more. That's sickening. It's time for people to actually pony up and take a little responsibility. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/angry-smiley-055.gif

Rant off.
 
Exactly people need to be responsible for their actions and for thier dogs actions and for their kids actions. One of the stories involves a dog that killed a cat and went after another dog. Is the kind of dog to keep in the house with little kids I don't think so. I have never left my dogs unsupervised with any kids ever and never would. I do not have kids and even though they are well behaved with kids I would not put a person or my dogs in that position.
Little kids are more likely to get bitten probably because the are not taught how to act around a dog. And perhaps the dog is not taught how to act around kids. In fact I was bitten when I was five by our pooddle pepper. I jumped on top of her while she was sleeping and she bit me and if I was her I would of bit me to. I was told by my mother to leave her alone and I did not. Hey I was 5 I wanted to play. Now if she was a large dog it would of been a bad scene and I might be so hansome /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif.
from the cdc
"Each year, 800,000 Americans seek medical attention for dog bites; half of these are children. Of those injured, 386,000 require treatment in an emergency department and about a dozen die. The rate of dog bite-related injuries is highest for children ages 5 to 9 years, and the rate decreases as children age. Almost two thirds of injuries among children ages four years and younger are to the head or neck region. Injury rates in children are significantly higher for boys than for girls."
 
Back
Top