Seems like a strange story. On so many levels. Who lets their 2-yr old wonder off. They’re talking on local radio shows about if the owner will get in trouble. But I’m almost of the opinion that it’s not his fault. Not sure. Especially when he warned them. But I’m also of the opinion that Pit Bulls should be outlawed and no one should be allowed to have them. But that’s not the law yet, so…… Anyway… a tragic story that’s getting a lot of air time here in WV and thought I’d see what my friends on Hatrack thought.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the owner, not the dog. Meaning ANY dog can become a mauler given the improper care and training of an irresponsible owner.
Pit bulls are NOT inherently evil and can actually make good family pets. You have to raise them right, like any dog.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This guy knew the dog was dangerous. He knew a 2-year old was around. He definitely is at fault and should be in trouble.
The parents are at fault, too, for letting their 2-year old out of their sight knowing a dangerous dog was around. But not as much as the keeper of the dangerous animal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am an animal lover, have pets myself. I never believed that any dog was inherently evil, and I do place responsibility on the owner in raising the animal properly... BUT... I had a good friend who was the Director of the SPCA here in town for several years. The SPCA will not take in Pit Bulls, and I asked him why. He said that no matter what kind of training or upbringing you give a pit, there is a chance that the dog will turn on you. He said you could raise ten pits in ten loving and caring families, and he could guarantee that one would turn. Apparently it's genetic - breeding has created this instinct, like being a bird dog or a digger. It's sad to see, and I was really surprised to hear that from a person that I KNEW loved animals and knew his business. I know several very sweet pits myself, but I always have what he said in the back of my mind.
As for that baby, it is truly a tragedy. There are so many variables that you can't really pass judgement. Did the owner know his dog was violent? Did he warn the parents? Were the parents watching their child? Did the child know how to treat an animal? Did she antagonise the dog? So many questions, and no good answers apparently. Just one dead little girl, which is a terrible terrible thing.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Young says there are conflicting statements about how the visitors to the house were warned about the dog and how the girl got into the house.
It sounds like they're still determining how the girl got in the house. If she got in without the owner's knowledge, how is he responsible. The dog was quarantined in the house and the girl's family had been warned.
Of course, if the owner let her in, that's a different story.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say he should be muzzled all the time. But while visitors were in the house, he should have been.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, pit bulls do tend to be a very aggressive breed, but unless they are trained otherwise (or maltreated), their aggression is typically toward other dogs. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule, but this would be true of ANY animal.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds like they're still determining how the girl got in the house. If she got in without the owner's knowledge, how is he responsible. The dog was quarantined in the house and the girl's family had been warned.
Of course, if the owner let her in, that's a different story.
First, if you own a dangerous animal, you take a certain amount of responsibility for damage caused by that animal. Here, there was ample warning: the earlier incident and the fact he was quarantined. This gives some responsibility no matter what safety precautions were taken or what warnings were given.
Second, the owner's responsibility was to both keep the dog in and keep people out. While a burglar would enter at is own risk, a child who was a guest in the house needs to be protected from wandering into the dog. The door should have been locked so no one could get in without breaking in.
These are my moral opinions, by the way, not legal ones.
posted
That's terrible. I want to scream everytime I see one of these stories. Mack is right, pit bulls aren't evil - but, there's no getting away from the fact that as a breed they have been bred for a much higher aggression level than other dogs. Any dog *can* be a danger, but pit bulls (I'll include rotties here too) are known to be more of a risk due to their bloodlines, much like labs are known to be more loving and good with kids. In either case, as with anything, there are exceptions.
When I worked for a vet he would not allow rotties or pits to come for overnight boarding (or dalmations either, for that matter - they can get "nippy" as they age). To be honest, I would never allow my children to go over to a friend's home who had an uncaged rottie or pit. I know some of them can be loving dogs, but some of them have killed people, and these are not isolated cases.
posted
They weren't in the house, though. He specifically told them NOT to go inn the house.
Sure, if they were in the house, he should have secured the dog. Personally, I think pit bulls shouldn't be allowed as run of the mill pets. I think you should have to have a special licence or something, becausse they are a dangerous breed.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't just tell a 3-year-old not to go in the house and leave it at that, and not be prepared for her to sneak away and go in the house. I wouldn't let my child play unsupervised where I know there are dangers like outlets and knives and small objects, and neither would I rely on my being able to watch a 3 year old closely while socializing and having warned her not to go in to keep her away from a potentially dangerous animal.
That is directed both at the parents and at the owner.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
God. I knew pit bulls were dangerous and stuff, but I had never heard of one killing anyone. Just a side question, what's deadlier? A pitbull or a rottweiler? I know they are both very aggressive breeds...
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But I don't think it's a legal issue of a muzzle.
I muzzle our dog when we go for walks. She was abused and has a tendency to snap at people if she feels threatened. When she's in the back yard, we don't keep her muzzled. The fence is a tall one and we generally lock the doors to the back yard.
I don't think a normal person would think to muzzle a dog who was closed up in the house if he was out in the front yard talking to people who dropped by for a visit.
I'm not saying the owner and the parents are not culpable, I'm just saying that suggesting that muzzle laws apply is a bit overboard. Plus, I'm not sure what, if any muzzle laws there are in this particular state. I don't think all states have muzzle laws, and certainly those that do are not uniform.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they were mentioned at the end. You're right that muzzle laws vary even by county. But even when there aren't strict laws, vets will sometimes recommend a dog be kept muzzled except when eating (although I'm not saying it happened here).
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG's linky makes me wonder - has anyone heard of any cases in which a non-pit or rottie has killed? Surely it's happened, but I honestly can't recall any at all.
(I'm not jabbin' at the link, FG - I think it shows a good story - it just made me wonder)
posted
I couldn't find any specific information on muzzle laws in West Virginia, but the guy was culpable for having a known Viscious dog according to this ( I think):
The whole story didn't load the first time I clicked on the link posted by Jay. I don't know why.
I don't think they have a muzzle law. The above does make it illegal to own a known vicious animal, except by special licence for 'protection'.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had a situation about my dog nearly biting someone when I was younger. He'd just gone blind and was a bit pissy about it. Basically, he wasn't used to the loss of one sense yet and got scared easily by people he wasn't familiar with. A neighbor came over to talk to my father and his daughter (teenage, we're talking 15 years old) and her friend of the same age came over with the neighbor. My dog was on a run in the backyard (he hated being indoors during the daytime, but we weren't going to let him run free. He always had a a line run or a full fenced in run, especially since he went blind). Anyrate, my father told both the neighbor and the daughter and friend to stay away from Buddy (the dog) because he was easily startled lately and would try and bite out of fear. My father and the neighbor chatted. In the meantime, the friend, DESPITE the warning and the dog being on a run far enough away to keep people away from danger. DESPITE my father and the neighbor being there, this kid decided to walk up to my dog. She scared him, and he went to bite. She backed off and he was stopped by the line on his run. Thank god.
But what the hell? She'd been told. It had been explained. She was EXPRESSLY told NOT to approach the dog because of his condition. And yet she did so--and she wasn't some little kid, it was a fifteen year old.
Had he managed to bite her, I'm not sure what would've happened. The poor dog was already trying to adjust to being blind. He wasn't a mean dog by any measure. He was scared, as anything would be when you lose a sense you've had all your life.
*sigh*
It just doesn't seem fair, when you warn people, when you DO keep your dog away from folks to keep both the dog AND the people away from danger, and people still go looking for trouble. A two year old--her parents REALLY should've been watching her much better. Though the story doesn't say how she got into the house. Yes, it should've been locked. The owner kept the visitors outside for a reason but he didn't fully secure the house.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The owner kept the visitors outside for a reason but he didn't fully secure the house.
This is where I have a problem. Making the assumption that the girl went into the house without the owner's invitation or knowledge, why should he have to keep his house locked. Her parents should be responsible for where she is and what she's doing at all time.
I have the same issue with pools. In Florida, even if your pool completely screened in, you still have to have a baby fence around it and keep it closed at all times. I can agree with mandating a latch on the screen door out of reach of young children, but beyond that, I think you're messing with a homeowner's rights. Why should a homeowner have to take responsibility that should belong to the parents?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because you can watch and watch and watch some kids, and they still get away! My brother even used to escape a kiddie harness and get about 300 feet away without my dad noticing, and my dad was very watchful.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is where I have a problem. Making the assumption that the girl went into the house without the owner's invitation or knowledge, why should he have to keep his house locked. Her parents should be responsible for where she is and what she's doing at all time.
True, her parents should be watching her. But that he chose to keep a dog he knew was dangerous. By doing that, he assumes moral responsibility for the damage caused by that dog.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they didn't know the dog was dangerous and the door was unlocked, were watching her but she slipped off when they weren't looking, then no. They shouldn't be.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parents could be in Florida depending on circumstances. There have been several cases where a child gets out of the house unnoticed and is found later in a ditch, retention pond/lake, etc.
I don't think it's been done, though. I can't think of any punishment that the law could dish out that would drive the lesson into someone more than losing their own child.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Dagonee. I think his only moral responsibility is for damage done by the dog before he quarantined it, or damage done after he quarantined it, if the dog escaped through some negligence on his part. (For instance, leaving a window open or something).
If the child entered his home without his permission or knowledge, and she had never done so before, I don't see how he has moral responsibility for this injury.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because you can watch and watch and watch some kids, and they still get away! My brother even used to escape a kiddie harness and get about 300 feet away without my dad noticing, and my dad was very watchful.
But if the patio door is latched and locked in such a way too prevent a small child from getting in, why is another fence necessary?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The deputy chief says there was a lot of blood. He says vicious pit bulls go for the throat when they attack.
I know I'm nitpicking, but don't all Canines go for the throat when they attack?
I know i just sound like a copycat when i say this, but it really does depend on whether the owner know she was in the house or not. If he did the he is responsible, if he didn't he isn't. It's that simple, IMHO.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a moment...if the owner of the dog should have some moral responsibility for the damage the dog does, just by virtue of owning a dangerous dog (not dangerous because he's a pit bull, but because he's shown history), then should not a parent also own some moral responsibility for things their child does if they elude their watch?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, they are toddler sized. Assuming they are referring to an actual American Pit Bull Terrier, and not some other mix or breed that is called Pit Bull by journalists.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I searched for state laws only, but then, my google-fu is notoriously weak.
They shouldn't be charged, but they should feel darned guilty (and I'm sure they do). They were warned by the guy (it was either in this article, or one of the others I've seen on the subject), who told them to stay out of the house because his dog bites.
I dunno about anyone else, but my babies never got out of my arms around any dog except my mother's Yorkie, who knew them well. Not even when the dog owner's kids were standing right next to the dog inviting one of them to pet it. I was very cautious, because I've seen the results of dog bites, even minor ones if they happen to be to an extremity or the face.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I would never own a pit bull (or rottie), because of the aggressiveness that has specifically been bred into them. Those that do choose to own them (and this would be good advice for any dog owner) should be aware of the possible risks involved and do what they can to prevent problems. Not knowing all the details of this story makes it hard to figure out where responsibility lies. The parents are responsibile for watching their child. I know it's hard and I know kids can disappear quickly, but they should have been watching their daughter. The owner is responsible for controlling his dog. I understand the dog was confined to the house (a good idea) and she may have "snuck in" (difficult to do anything about), but he chose to keep an animal that was known to have problems. Basically, a little girl is dead and I think there's plenty of blame to go around. It's a tragedy. Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the child entered his home without his permission or knowledge, and she had never done so before, I don't see how he has moral responsibility for this injury.
The child was a guest. She was too young to abide by the rules voluntarily. He knew it was a danger, a life-threatening danger. His precautions were overcome by a two-year old. Therefore they were insufficient, barring a 2-year old with magical powers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's not enough information to be certain what is going on here. It seems to indicate the girl was a guest at the house, but the dog was kept inside the house, so does that mean they were all just visiting the outside? Like, as in a backyard barbecue? If so, then what about people who went inside to go to the bathroom?
Or, was the dog quarantined in only a certain part of the house, and the child went exploring and just opened the wrong door?
We don't know enough to judge who should accept what portion of the blame, but the facts remain a small child is dead, and it's because a man did not destroy a dog that had shown a tendency for viciousness. The responsible thing to do would have been to put the dog down after the first incident, especially considering this is a breed known for viciousness. Or, he should have kept the dog muzzled when there were guests anywhere near his home.
If he indeed invited these people onto any part of his property while he kept an animal known to attack others, he should have either removed the animal from the property, or muzzled it. If he couldn't keep people completely safe from the dog, yes even toddlers whose parents don't keep a sharp eye on them, then he shouldn't own the dog or he shouldn't hold parties.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Young says there are conflicting statements about how the visitors to the house were warned about the dog and how the girl got into the house. Huntington Police are investigating.
I don't know, it appears whether or not she was a guest isn't clear yet. If she was a guest, then I agree the man has moral responsibility for this. If not, then he does not, I believe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even that quote says they were "visitors to the house," Rakeesh. The man is claiming they were warned. How is she not a guest?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my point, Dagonee. The quote contradicts itself. They were guests at the house, but they can't determine how the child got into the house?
As for the breed being 'known for visciousness', it is difficult to determine how accurate this is. Are they 'known for viciousness' because it is genetic that they are, from birth, more likely to attack humans than other dogs? Are they 'known for viciousness' because often the people who own them are people who want a dog that is excellent at fighting, and bred to have a good body for it? Are they 'known for violence' because the people who own them are too careless?
I don't know the answers to any of those questions, really, but I do know that if properly raised, I have no fear around pit bulls, and believe no one else should, either.
But of course since one cannot determine if a pit bull has been properly trained unless they've done it themselves, they should be wary around others.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's my point, Dagonee. The quote contradicts itself. They were guests at the house, but they can't determine how the child got into the house?
They were visitors to the house. He warned them (or not) not to go inside. The child went inside, but they're not sure how she got there. That could mean which door, how she unlocked it, or how she got away from the parents.
It's not contradictory - they were visitors who were staying outside.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
