Dog lovers campaign to save Phoenix pit bull who mauled 4-year-old

[XemaSab]

A dog that mauled a 4-year-old Phoenix boy has received thousands of pleas for mercy through a Facebook campaign ahead of a court hearing to decide his fate.

A municipal court judge could rule at a March 25 hearing on whether Mickey, a pit bull that bit Kevin Vicente in the face, should be euthanized. Kevin received injuries that will require, according to doctors, months and possibly years of reconstructive surgeries.

Since the Feb. 20 attack, Mickey has become the object of a Facebook page that has gotten more than 40,000 likes and an online petition to spare his life.

Supporters say the campaign doesn't mean they value the dog's life above the child's. "This is not Kevin versus Mickey," said attorney John Schill, who is representing the dog in the court petition. "Having Mickey killed is not going to take away Kevin's pain or injuries. The only thing this is going to do is kill a poor, innocent dog."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/17/dog-lovers-campaign-to-save-phoenix-pit-bull-who-mauled-4-year-old/

[Tx4obama]

1. The dog is NOT ' innocent', it killed another dog and mauled a 4 year old child. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

2. And what might he do in the future? He is not going to be...

destroyed as punishment, but as the removal of a dangerous animal.

Sometimes I wonder about people.

[avebury]

105. If the dog had killed another dog does that not

make the woman negligent for not having the dog removed from the property? Such an event would put any reasonable adult on notice that this is a dog might be a danger to her own child. Failing to remove the danger, would that not also make the woman negligent for allowing the child to be around the dog unsupervised? While the dog might have chained up, the child was not. She should at minimum be charge with child endangerment. The child was a victim, the parent is complicit in the act due to her negligence just as she would have been had she left a loaded gun where the child could have gotten it and fired it at another person. Different methods of violence resulting from the the same type of omission of common sense.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Regardless what breed, this dangerous animal should be put down.

He has attacked a child and killed another dog.

[JI7]

4. who owned the dog ? shoudn't they be held responsible ?

[seveneyes]

5. All the above

Pit Bull control now.

[XemaSab]

7. The owner surrendered the dog to be destroyed

n/t

[JI7]

11. maybe he should surrender himself for some prison time

for having a dog like that and then not making sure they wont harm others.

[LisaL]

22. Well if you chain your dog in your yard, are you responsible (legally) if somebody comes near it?

It's not like the dog was roaming (which would be not legal).

[Nine]

26. Yes, you are. (nt)

[LisaL]

48. The dog was on owner's property, on a chain.

Not roaming.
Presumably that's why there have been no charges against the owner.

[Warpy]

51. It's so sad, there's nothing like a chain to make a dog more aggressive against

anything or anyone that comes into its range.

I don't know if the owner was poor or ignorant or both, but dogs need fences, both to give them more freedom of movement and to discourage other creatures from entering the area and possibly provoking it.

[Nine]

58. So I guess I can put bear traps all over my yard.

If some kid happens to walk across my lawn and gets a trap clamped on to their leg - well, it's their fault for coming onto my property, right? I can put whatever hazards I want within my unfenced yard and I'll have full legal immunity, correct?

[LanternWaste]

107. As far as I'm aware, dog chains require no state licensing, bear traps do.

As far as I'm aware, dog chains require no state licensing (hence, delineated regulations), bear traps do.

[Nine]

108. Swimming pools don't require state licensing either.

But homeowners with unfenced swimming pools have still been held liable when children drown. I know I've heard of cases where people setting "burglar traps" on their property have been held responsible for injuries inflicted. I'm not a lawyer but I thought it was a pretty well established legal principle that property lines do not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything that happens to anyone not expressly invited to be there. You still have to have some common sense and take some reasonable care to prevent needless injuries.

A quick Google search turned up this:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-5.html

A general rule is that a dog owner who could reasonably expect someone to be on the property is probably going to be liable for any injury that person suffers. This rule is particularly important when it comes to children. Even a dog owner who does not explicitly invite a neighborhood child onto the property will probably be held liable if it's reasonable to know the child is likely to wander in—and dogs are a big attraction to children. In other words, there is a legal responsibility either to prevent the child from coming on the property or to keep the dog from injuring the child...

In some states, an injured trespasser can sue and win if the dog owner acted unreasonably under the circumstances. Other states still use an old legal rule that landowners are liable to injured trespassers only if the landowner, after knowing the trespasser was on the land, intentionally harmed the trespasser or failed to warn of the danger. There is an important exception to this rule: generally, a landowner has a duty to protect trespassing children, who don't have the judgment to avoid dangerous situations.

To me, reasonableness is what this boils down to. I think it's reasonable to expect that a small child playing in an unfenced yard may occasionally take a step or two over a neighbor's property line. I think it's unreasonable to expect an adult supervising the child to be able to prevent this from ever happening. On the other hand, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to have a dog chained outside with no supervision and no fence. Chains DO make dogs more aggressive. That's a situation the dog owners created. A chain may prevent a dog from leaving the property but it does not prevent a child from approaching the dog. That is another failure of responsibility. I don't see how any reasonable person can argue that the dog owners were not at fault here.

[LisaL]

21. Dog was on a chain.

Owner actually wants the dog put down, from what I understand.

[avebury]

31. The babysitter was not properly supervising

the child at the time of the incident. I wonder how well the parents worked with the child where the dog is concerned. The child should have been taught that you don't take food or a bone away from a dog.

You cannot place all of the blame on the dog, the adults also have to bare a lot of the blame. Too many dogs find themselves labeled dangerous because they ended up with irresponsible owners.

[Mariana]

37. It's not a matter of blaming the dog.

Of course it's not the dog's fault it's dangerous.

[avebury]

39. An individual dog is not inherently dangerous but is a

product of the environment it is kept in and how it is treated by its owners. Case in point, a lot of Michael Vick's dogs who were used in dog fighting were rehabilitated and lived good lives once they were removed from Vick's property. What has not been revealed is how the dog was treated in its home. Did the family take steps to make sure that the dog was well socialized? Did they make sure that their child was supervised 100% of the time with the dog? Had the dog gone through any training classes? Did he have experienced owners. Not all breeds of dogs are right for all owners. Some breeds take a lot of work and should be only with experienced owners. Just because you really like a particular dog or breed does not mean it is a good match. Too many dogs find themselves in a really bad situation because of inexperienced owners and/or due to neglect.

[jmowreader]

6. If you want to see what he did, click here

Fair warning: these pictures are disturbing in the extreme.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2582139/Petition-save-pit-bull-viciously-mauled-four-year-old-boy-44-000-signatures.html

[anneboleyn]

27. That poor child -- those scars will be horrible. So sad.

[KamaAina]

8. Oh goody!

[snooper2]

9. what part of this story makes the dog innocent?

[avebury]

32. The fact that the babysitter was not

properly supervising the child at the time. The fact that the dog ended up with irresponsible owners who apparently did not begin early on teaching their child not to take food or a bone away from the dog. The fact that they did not work with the dog on recognizing that the child is a child.

Any parents who have any pets (cats, dogs, lizzards, bunnies, whatever) need to begin very early on to teach a child not to smack the animal, pull tails, jump on the animal, take food from the pet, and so on. It takes work to integrate children and pets into a harmonious relationship/family. You cannot just throw animals and kids together and expect everything to be just ducky without any work on the parents part. If an animal owner is not interested in investing time and training with a family pet, they have no business owning a pet.

[Deep13]

65. oh for christ sake.

If it were rabid you would be arguing for an insanity defense. It's a dog, not a person. It doesn't get a defense. The authorities and the owner both believe the dog is dangerous and should be destroyed. Apparently, the owner was stuck with the dog after her former boyfriend just left it at her house. She will be lucky to escape a lawsuit. And children don't need to be supervised for every minute of every day.

[avebury]

68. Talk about absurd.

Nobody can be "stuck" with a animal. Just who is the adult in the story?

If the woman did not want the dog she always had the option of turning it into the nearest animal shelter/animal control. That right there tells me that she was irresponsible because she kept a dog that she obviously did not want and probably did not know how to handle. Unless she could prove to authorities that the former boyfriend had left the dog there only recently, the fact that she kept it and fed it, made her now responsible for the dog. Where I live, if Animal Control know that you are feeding and putting water out for an animal then you are recognized as becoming responsible for that animal. She did that dog no favor by keeping it in her home.

Blaming the dog is like blaming a gun that shot someone. Just like a gun needs a person to pick it up and fire it, the dog was in the hands of in irresponsible human. If she feared that the dog could be dangerous she was foolish to keep it and foolish to allow it to be around her child unsupervised. Yes it is difficult to supervise a child at all times and, as a parent, she should have known that. It becomes easier for society to put 100% blame on the dog then for people and (the mother) to recognize the mother's negligence for keeping a dog she did not trust in her home. That dog would have been better of had it either 1) been taken to animal control, or 2) given a chance to be re-homed with someone who was experienced with that breed. Like it or not there are 2 victims here the dog and the child. Absence the mother's negligence, the incident would have NEVER taken place. Just like I blame a gun owner, I blame the person who made a conscious decision to keep a dog in her home that should have been removed for the sake of all concerned (humans and dog).

The ex boyfriend should not have left the dog at the house but she did become legally liable for it by keeping it. If I had legal standing to sue the woman over what happened would I? You betcha - 100%. Stupidity often comes with a price.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. Sorry, Mr Schill, you really don't care about that kid's injuries

Apparently he doesn't know the meaning of the word "innocent", which is problematic for a lawyer.

I get the fact pit bull fans advocate for their breed, but THIS is fucking beyond the pale.

[Demo_Chris]

12. The dog needs to be put down. Pit owners and advocates scare me more than their dogs. nt

[RebelOne]

13. I have had 2 pit bulls and 2 Rottweilers

and all of them were the sweetest dogs you would ever want to meet. But if any one of them attacked a child, as much as I loved the dog, I would have it put down immediately.

I worked for a magazine in Miami, and I used to take Easy, one of the pit bulls, who weighed 96 pounds, to my office on weekends when I had deadlines. Everyone loved him. One day, one of the editors, Mark, was joking around with me and grabbed me by the shoulders. Well, Easy did not like that so he jumped between us and pushed Mark away. That was the only aggressive action I had ever seen from Easy.

[etherealtruth]

17. I have a 9 month old pit bull

(technically, my youngest son has one) She is the sweetest thing and the love of my life .... but, if she were to aggressively attack a child, a man or a woman ... I could not would not tolerate or defend her.

I say this as she sits in a recliner with my almost 80 year old mother.

I never dreamed I (my son) would ever have a pit bull .... but as a facebook meme regarding pit bull's said: Just tell her I'm a rescue pup. Once she meets me and falls in love, we tell her I'm a pit bull ... works every time! As it turns out, it's true

[PumpkinAle]

54. Totally agree etherealtruth

on all aspects of your post.

As for the tell her it's a rescue - yep fell for it

[XemaSab]

99. If it was 96 pounds then it wasn't a pit bull

n/t

[RebelOne]

101. He was a pit bull and had all physical characteristics of a pit.

It is possible he could have had some mastiff in him. I have old photos of him, but have to find a way to scan them. If I can, I will post them. All other pit bull owners and breeders I knew agreed he was a pit bull.

[magical thyme]

14. Dogs should not be kept on chains.

It doesn't matter what breed. They are isolated, frustrated, unsocialized, and permanently stressed because they know they have no way to escape from danger. Constant chaining literally makes them aggressive out of continual fear.

So I blame the owners. That does not mean I believe Mickey should not be euthanized, although I believe that with good people he could be rehabilitated or at least kept in a way that he was no danger to others.

But too many wonderful dogs are euthanized simply because there aren't enough homes. Mickey at this point is an miserable dog, and is probably better off dead than living with the assholes that kept him on a chain.

I blame the people who kept Mickey this way, and the idiot who left a child unattended near a chained dog, to try to take away his bone.

[Scout]

15. i blame the adult who was in charge of watching the child.

also, see post 14 by magical thyme ... i blame the owners too.

[1000words]

16. Sorry, an animal with this temperament should be destroyed.

There are too many that don't maul and kill that need homes.

[LiberalAndProud]

18. Mr. Schill surely knows his chances of prevailing are slim to none.

I'm left to speculate as to ulterior motives.

[font size="1"]I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right! [/font]

[Zorra]

19. But Sparky is such a little angel! And this is only the third child he's tried to eat! nt

[LisaL]

20. Poor kid got severely maimed.

Even if the kid tried to take the bone, the dog is food agressive.
It would be too dangerous to have around anyone.
So "dog lovers" should find something better to do.

[Shankapotomus]

23. If the death penalty is too cruel for a person

maybe we should draw the line at life in a gated enclosure for a dog?

[bigwillq]

24. That dog needs to be destroyed (nt)

[uppityperson]

25. It doesn't matter what dog did this. A dog that does this needs to be euthanized.

[anneboleyn]

28. I agree. That poor kid was severely mauled. This dog should be euthanized.

[Gravitycollapse]

29. An animal with a temperament and physical strength like that needs to be put down.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I like people. Except misanthropes, whom I hate.

If every one of the antisocial fucks that signed the petition would donate a dollar to the child's care, the family would multiply the resources available for that purpose by a factor of 7.

A dog that bites the face off a little boy deserves no better treatment than a person who does.

[msanthrope]

33. Hey! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Present company excluded.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. It's the old "leave snookums alone" shit. Jesus, people were blaming Dianne Whipple for being killed

outside her own damn apartment. She "provoked" the poor doggies, who then proceeded to rip her larynx out.

LEAVE SNOOKUMS ALONE

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20133691,00.html

Look, I like dogs. Some dogs. But not all dogs.

And a dog that has attacked a little kid doesn't really get a second "chance" in my book.

[baldguy]

35. Sorry about the kid, but only the person at blame here is the sitter, not the dog.

There are a thousand things in the world that can maim & kill unsupervised children. THAT'S WHY THE NEED TO BE SUPERVISED!

People want to kill the dog for acting like a dog, and totally ignore the circumstances - the dog was chained up in his own yard, minding his own business.

[flvegan]

36. Prepare to get shouted down, voice of reason!

Welcome to DU!

[Mariana]

38. They want to kill the dog for acting like a *dangerous" dog.

Most dogs, if they happen to find themselves alone with unsupervised children, don't do what this dog did.

[baldguy]

40. Many dogs have aggression issues. Especially when it comes to their food & toys.

And for the vast majority of those dogs, it's not a problem when they're properly cared for & supervised. It doesn't make them "bad", it doesn't make them "dangerous".

This tragic story has nothing to do with dogs in general, or even that dog in particular. As I said in my previous post: there are a thousand things in the world that can maim & kill unsupervised children. That's the reason they need to be supervised.

[Nine]

42. Whaaa?

Having aggression issues doesn't make a dog dangerous? That seems like the very definition of a dangerous dog! I'm curious what other criteria you would use to classify a dog as dangerous.

[baldguy]

43. You obviously didn't read the OP, or my post, or have any concern for any neglected child.

Many dogs have aggression issues WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR FOOD & THAT TOYS. It's perfectly natural, and shouldn't cause any problems when they're properly supervised.

OTOH, when dogs show aggression inappropriately - as in being territorial outside their territory, or being possessive of other animals food & toys, or simply attacking without provocation - then they're displaying dangerous behaviors. None of that happened in this situation.

[LisaL]

47. I've seen many shows on animal rescue.

The shelters test dogs for food aggression. If the dogs are food agressive they are deemed not adoptable and are put down.
It might be "perfectly natural" but these dogs are not fit to be out there.

[baldguy]

49. So I'm guessing you're totally OK w/allowing 4-yr olds to roam the neighborhood free & unsupervised.

Because that's what really happened here.

[LisaL]

52. No, I am not ok with it. But two wrongs don't make a right.

[baldguy]

57. It also means that the dog owner doesn't share the same amount of blame as the child's sitter.

Or more, as the genocidal dog haters would have you believe.

[Nine]

59. The child was supervised. The dog was not. (nt)

[baldguy]

72. Supervised is "No, Kevin! Don't go near the dog."

Apparently that was too difficult for the "responsible" adult.

[LisaL]

80. Oh, but pit bulls are sweet lovable teddy bears, according to some.

Why should babysitter worry about child going near the dog?

[baldguy]

84. Why would a babysitter allow a child to go near an unknown, unsupervised dog?

Do you think every dog should come perfect & unblemished out of the box from the factory, knowing every rule, law & custom of human society? And if it doesn't meet these stringent quality control requirements it should be destroyed & disposed of like a broken toaster, of course.

Dogs are not toasters. They are living, breathing individuals, each with their own thoughts, desires & emotions. For good or ill, all of those thoughts, desires & emotions are directed toward humans. It's the human's job - everyone's job - to do our best to ensure those interactions are good. That some people fail in this should be no surprise. That such tragedies as depicted in the OP ever occur should be proof enough.

And I would never generalize. That is a human failing also.

[Nine]

82. Please stop making up lies.

The four-year-old victim of this horrific mauling was NOT "roaming the neighborhood free and unsupervised." He was playing in his babysitter's own yard with other children while multiple adults supervised. Maybe he crossed the unmarked property line while running around, perhaps by as little as a foot or two. Maybe he even picked up a bone he saw lying on the ground. Four-year-olds do things like that, and it can happen in just a moment, just like an attack by a dog can happen in a moment. There was no reasonable way for the babysitter to have protected the child from such an attack except by confining the children indoors. The owners of the dog are the ones at fault here.

You often say that it's not the dogs who are bad but only some of the owners. Well here you have the perfect opportunity to condemn these irresponsible dog owners and instead your argument is that, "the dog owner doesn't share the same amount of blame as the child's sitter," and that any one who believes otherwise is a "genocidal dog hater." Astounding.

[baldguy]

85. An adult just being in the vicinity of a child does not equate to supervising a child.

And the fact that "multiple adults" were apparently ignoring what the 4 yr old was doing is even more damning for them.

[Nine]

88. This is getting ridiculous.

What you are characterizing as lack of supervision is one of the most commonplace and unremarkable scenes I can imagine. Children playing in the backyard. Adults chatting with each other on the deck or patio while keeping an eye on the children. What is your evidence that the child was being ignored? You have none. You are taking the fact that this child was attacked as proof that he was not being supervised. It's circular logic. But children can be injured even when they are being well supervised. Some things happen in a split second. And children ought to be able to play in the yard and maybe even step over a property line without being mauled by a neighbor's animal. That is the neighbor's responsibility to prevent, not the four-year-old's. And that responsibility does not end where your property line begins.

If I leave a loaded gun lying on my lawn and the four-year-old child next door steps over the property line into my yard, picks it up, and shoots himself, that is MY fault. Should I be able to escape responsibility by claiming it wouldn't have happened if the parents who were sitting right there had done a better job teaching their preschooler where the property line is? Or that the parents are more at fault than I am for not teaching their preschooler what to do if they ever encounter a gun? Absolutely not. The responsibility for that tragedy would be mine.

[baldguy]

90. "No, Kevin! Don't go near the dog."

That's simple, common sense responsibility. Tell the kid to stay away from potential injury. Go & get him and take him away if he doesn't mind you. And don't blithely ignore the trouble the kid is getting into or liable to get into. Your attitude is what gets children injured & killed - and not just by the dogs you seem to be fixated on.

[Nine]

93. "No, Ke... oops, too late."

Why are you so confident that this took place over an extended time period and not in a split second? How are you supposed to prevent a four-year-old running around in the yard from ever setting a foot over the unfenced, unmarked property line into the reach of the dog's chain? These may not have been huge yards to begin with. Is this more of your circular logic? Pit bulls don't attack unprovoked therefore the child must have been provoking the dog?

I don't understand how you reconcile your claims that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dog with your belief that the adults here were terrible negligent for letting the child get anywhere near that dog.

And why aren't you directing any of your judgment toward the owners who kept that dog in an unfenced yard? Wasn't that a failure of "simple, common sense responsibility?" Weren't these owners "blithely ignoring" the danger they were presenting to others? Your claim that the babysitter was more at fault than the dog's owners is just mind-boggling.

[one_voice]

53. Sometimes the agressions...

can be treated if you take the time and have the patience. I've seen it done.

There are also some rescues that will work with aggressive dogs, Best Friends is one. Many of Michael Vicks dogs were 'rehabbed' there.

Like I said down further, this is a sad story all the way around.

[1000words]

56. That is my understanding, as well.

Food aggression is an indication that the dog has not recognized it's proper place with regards to humans.

[Nine]

55. You're not making any sense.

You seem to be saying that what this dog did was "perfectly natural" and that it did not "show aggression inappropriately" because it was (probably) on its own property, guarding its own food and toys. You're suggesting that horrifically mauling a preschooler for (possibly) picking up a bone does not count as "attacking without provocation."

You know, we've debated about pit bulls and dogs before and I always thought your stance was simply that pit bulls are no more inherently dangerous than any other kind of dog. But here you seem to actually be proposing some sort of "Stand Your Ground" entitlement for them. They're not dangerous or aggressive... as long as you don't enter whatever they consider their "territory," as long as you don't touch their food or any object they've claimed possession of, as long as you don't "provoke" them. But if you do any of these things, all bets are off the table, is what you seem to be saying. That's a much more sinister position to take than your past claims that pit bulls are just big, sweet babies as long as they are raised properly.



And what "neglected child" are you talking about? The victim? He was being supervised by multiple adults when the dog attacked him.

According to a county report on the attack, Kevin was playing with other children in the yard where his baby-sitter had taken him when he ran past Mickey, who was chained. Kevin walked within the radius of the 18-foot chain. The dog caught the boy from behind, took him to the ground and attacked his face, according to the report. Adults were present and pulled the dog off.

Their mistake, in my opinion, was in not regarding the unfenced pit bull as a danger from the start. But since you don't share that view, I wonder where you think they went wrong?

[flvegan]

61. Allow me.

While I don't speak for the poster you are responding to, I can't let stupid pass. Your emotional second paragraph notwithstanding, and your nonsensical first paragraph being...well...

Your quote: "And what "neglected child" are you talking about? The victim? He was being supervised by multiple adults when the dog attacked him." Really? Then how did this happen. From the article in question: "According to Villa, Kevin picked up a bone lying on the ground near the dog, which was kept on a chain. That's when Mickey suddenly attacked Kevin, Villa said." So, and let me be concise, supervised is allowing a 4 year old to approach a dog, on a chain, and take food? Without...uh, supervision. Okay, got it. Somebody bring us the heads of these "adults supervising" this kid, because fail is a thing.

And then this, wow.

"According to a county report on the attack, Kevin was playing with other children in the yard where his baby-sitter had taken him when he ran past Mickey, who was chained. Kevin walked within the radius of the 18-foot chain. The dog caught the boy from behind, took him to the ground and attacked his face, according to the report. Adults were present and pulled the dog off." Wow, that's something. It's something totally unlike what was previously reported, but whatever.

It's like Jaws, on the ground. Here. Adults were present, but not supervising Pitbullnado! That's Sharknado with pitbulls. Whatever.

Their mistake, was chaining a dog up to begin with. Compounded with dipshit supervision by the MULTIPLE ADULTS (your words), the emotional advances made by posters here and elsewhere completely unfounded in reality, and the inability to take fault (or find fault in that which one might emotionally find fault with) Xema *cough* LOL, how are your dogs doing kiddo?)

baldguy, my apologies. I don't speak for him, and he'd not want me to, but I just couldn't let stupid pass.

[LisaL]

62. The child is 4. He is disfigured, likely for life.

That people still defend the dog boggles my mind.

[flvegan]

63. What else boggles your mind?

The dog is an easy target for non-thinkers. Yes, the kid is 4. That people defend fucking idiot people boggles MY mind. But then, I think.

[Nine]

74. Thank you for calling me stupid.

I don't disagree with you that the dog OWNERS made a mistake by chaining the dog. That's only one of many mistakes they made. My question was what mistake did the babysitter and other adults make other than not confining the children indoors for the entirety of the dog's life? The child was running around with other children in the babysitter's yard. There was apparently no fence separating the two properties. That the child entered the radius of the dog's 18-foot chain does not mean the adults were neglectful. Even assuming the radius of the chain is fully within the dog owner's property, a four-year-old cannot reasonable be expected to never cross over an unmarked property line while running around outside, and a dog can attack in the blink of an eye, which is apparently what happened here. I'm flabbergasted that people seem to be arguing that an attack by a dog is somehow excusable as long as the victim was within the property lines of the dog's owners.

You know, not every person who sets foot on another person's property is a trespasser. The dog could have just as easily attacked a mail carrier, a meter reader, a police officer, or any other person with a legal right to be on the property. And even a person who might not have a legal right to be on the property - like a four-year-old neighbor who unknowingly steps over an unmarked property line while playing - is still entitled to not lose life and limb because of it. That's why you're not allowed to set up deadly "burglar traps" on your property.

A dog that attacks a child for entering its "territory" or even picking up one of its toys is a dangerous dog. Period. That is a dog that cannot be trusted around human beings and needs to be put down. I don't believe that is a normal, natural reaction for most dogs.

[Mariana]

114. You're correct. Most dogs don't behave that way.

This dog is exceptional. Most dogs don't attack children ever, under any circumstances. If it were so "normal" and "natural" for dogs to attack children, there would hundreds or thousands of maulings and killings of children every single day. There aren't, because very few dogs are as dangerous as this one is.

[pnwmom]

70. The people should have kept the dog on the chain but the dog is vicious and needs to be put down.

A non-vicious dog wouldn't have bitten a child who hadn't even touched him. Guarding behavior like this isn't acceptable.

"According to Villa, Kevin picked up a bone lying on the ground near the dog, which was kept on a chain. That's when Mickey suddenly attacked Kevin, Villa said."

[avebury]

73. Any dog is capable of bitting a child under the

certain circumstance, i.e. the dog doesn't feel good, you try to take away its food/bone/toy, you jump on the dog, tug on a body part, whatever. Even with the nicest of dogs, accidents can happen. Our next door neighbor's dog bit me when I was little and it was an accident. I was too young to read the signs to not try to pet the dog at the time. It was nothing more then an accident.

The woman did not want to keep the dog on her property. Why on earth didn't she just sign it over to animal control? This dog was probably kept pretty isolated and improper socialization can have just a bad impact on an animal as it can a human who is kept in solitary confinement. Just what did she think could happen? What happened was totally preventable and, as the dog was incapable of unhooking his chain and taking himself off to an animal shelter or new home, responsibility must rest 100% with the woman. Yes I do feel sorry for the dog because it never stood a chance. That woman put that dog in a situation that allowed an event like this attack to happen. I also feel sorry for the child. It was the mother's responsibility to have the dog removed from the property and she didn't until it was too late. She also probably did not train the child to stay away from the dog and 4 years of age should be old enough to teach that message.

[pnwmom]

75. Not any dog, not under these circumstances. The child never touched the dog. Many dogs would never

viciously bite a child in the face for taking a bone that was on the ground.

Responsible dog owners train puppies from day 1 not to guard food or toys. Well behaved dogs don't bite humans, especially with such little provocation as this dog had.

[avebury]

77. Bottom line:

Then we can both agree that this woman was NOT a responsible owner.

As soon as she kept the dog on her property she became responsible for the welfare of the dog and liable for any of its actions. That dog was the canine equivalent of keeping a loaded gun around the house where it can be accessed by a child. Just as is often said about loaded guns and children - what could possibly go wrong. Just as a child cannot pick up a gun and accidentally shoot and injure or kill someone if the gun is properly secured, this dog would not have been able to injure the child if the mother had been responsible enough to have had it removed from the property when the ex boyfriend moved out. While the dog was secured by a chain, the child was not secured. She was not held hostage to the dog, the dog was held hostage by the woman and its circumstance. You cannot lay sole blame for the incident on the dog. The mother must take a huge portion of the blame due to her own neglience. I would hope that she would face criminal charges for child neglect and endangering the welfare of a minor child.

This incident was totally preventable and never should have happened in the first place. Therefore, the blame for the incident actually rests with the mother as her own negligence resulted in the chain of events that got her own child injured.

[pnwmom]

78. Yes. This was a very irresponsible dog owner who didn't deserve any dog. n/t

[avebury]

103. Your point was:

"A non-vicious dog wouldn't have bitten a child who hadn't even touched him." I don't think that you can make an absolute statement about any dog vicious or non-vicious. Even a non-vicious might snap if it is not feeling well has been abused without an owner realizing it (for example if someone came on your property and did something to your dog when you were not around) and for any other issues that you might not be aware of.

[Nine]

41. More information here...

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20140311pit-bull-mauling-phopenix-boy-debate-over-fate.html

Mickey’s attorney, John Schill, said there are inconsistencies in Villa’s story. As one of the adults who was around when Kevin was injured, Villa shares responsibility for the attack, Schill said.

“Everybody supports Mickey,” Schill said. “So few people think that Mickey should be put down that it’s ridiculous. Everybody is taught, from the moment they walk, you do not take a bone from a dog.”

The pro-Mickey sentiments on social media are outweighing anti-Mickey and pro-Kevin sentiments. The majority of calls and e-mails to the Board of Supervisors and to Silva have been from Mickey’s supporters.

Mickey’s owners surrendered him to the county, so the Lexus Project, a New York-based non-profit that provides legal defense for dogs, has hired a local attorney to represent the animal.

By contrast, a fundraising website for Kevin and his mother set up by Flor Medrano, a family friend, had raised $1,179 as of Tuesday. Kevin’s mother has declined media requests for interviews. Medrano said Kevin’s mother, a single parent, had to quit her job to take care of her son full time. With no other family in the U.S., Medrano said, the mother needs family and emotional support — yet neither is pouring in.

“We feel sad because they care more about Mickey,” Medrano said. “They’re saying that it was Kevin’s fault because he was spoiled, and they don’t even know Kevin. And they don’t even know the dog, either.

“He’s crying. He has nightmares. She (his mother) has nightmares.”

I can't even imagine how it would feel to have more money raised for the dog that attacked your child than for your child himself. What a disgusting world we live in.

I would also note that there is not enough information given to say whether this happened in the dog owner's yard or the baby sitter's yard. The dog's chain might have been long enough to extend partially into the baby sitter's yard. I personally don't think it matters but it seems to be important to some people. I believe that if you have a hazard on your property, whether it's a swimming pool or an aggressive dog, it is your responsibility to make that hazard inaccessible to children who might wander onto your property. I'm not a lawyer but I thought that was a pretty well established legal principle.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

44. I would have a lot more respect for these animal activist petitioners if......

........if they simultaneously donated to pay for the child's medical expenses.

[1awake]

45. I admit I am biased,

my youngest son was attacked and had to have reconstructive surgery on his face (lower lip was almost completely gone). It took all I had not to kill the dog with my bare hands.

The dog should be put down.

[one_voice]

46. I love all dogs...

I have 2 boxers, my daughter has 2 rescued pitties and I've had rotties.

I wish the humans that owned these dogs were held more responsible for their dogs actions.

I never leave a small child alone with my dogs--not because they're vicious but because it's irresponsible. Children need to be taught how to behave around dogs and dogs need to taught how to behave around people. Children & dogs should not be left unsupervised.

This is a sad story all the way around.

[baldguy]

50. +1000: "Children & dogs should not be left unsupervised."

[bluestateguy]

60. I love dogs until they maul innocent people

At that point they need to be put down.

[DrDan]

69. I would sure like to see actions taken so we do not have to deal with any more of these maulings

instead, we get to hear anecdotes about how sweet and loving their potential-maulers are

[Deep13]

64. Disgusting.

People are more concerned with that fucking dog--an animal that is clearly dangerous--than a little kid who is scarred for life. The dog's owner wants it put down, so who cares what the petition signers want. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is the dog's fault. As an animal, it can never be at fault for anything. It is dangerous and that is the only thing that matters.

[ErikJ]

66. Last night fantastic "Cosmos" episode about dog breeding to show how EVOLUTION works.

Neil spent the whole 1st half hour on dog breeding to show and prove how evoltion works. It was fascinating. Catch it if you can.

Primitive man 1st tamed friendly/brave wolves with food scraps then started breeding them into 200 breeds for different uses just as any other tool.

Unfortunately in the 19th century England one breed was bred for evil purposes, dog fighting. That would be the pit bull.

There is no moral reason to keep this breed in existence just as there is no moral reason to keep any other certain man-made dangerous tools or weapons in existence.

[Nine]

76. I saw it too.

And I think the people who deny artificial selection are just as ridiculous as the people who deny natural selection. Dogs have a strong instinct to do what they were bred to do - whether that's herding, tracking, going after vermin... or fighting. To pretend these behavioral breed-specific traits don't exist is just ludicrous.

[baldguy]

79. Don't even start with that bullshit.

You're just displaying how little you understand evolution.

Were Pit Bulls originally bred to fight? Sure. 200 yrs ago. They were bred to fight other dogs and specifically bred NOT to be aggressive toward humans.

Just as German Shepherds were developed to herd sheep, small Terriers were developed to kill mice & rats, and Bull Dogs were developed to kill bulls for sport, Bloodhounds were developed to track down, capture and/or kill humans. But they ALL - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - were developed with the desire to please their human masters and to live in human society.

Most people who own German Shepherds don't herd sheep, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have small Terriers don't let them chase & kill rats, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have Bull Dogs don't engage in bull-baiting with the dog, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have Bloodhounds don't hunt humans with the dog, they have the dog as a family member & companion.

And most people who have dogs which are descended from the original "pit bulls" don't engage in dog fighting, they have the dog as a family member & companion.

Any dog that regularly displays aggression toward humans is the victim of abuse & neglect. Period. The breed does not matter. And you're more likely to be killed by the average horse or cow you may encounter than the average Pit Bull.

[DrDan]

86. I would like to see a cite for cow-related deaths exceeding pit-bull-related deaths please

[baldguy]

87. How about the New York Times?

"...about 20 people a year are killed by cows in the United States."

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dangerous-cows/

That's compared to the 2-3 attributed to Pit Bulls.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2011%20Final%20Investigative%20DBRF%20Report.pdf

[Orrex]

91. How many pit bulls are there?

There are about 100 million cattle in the US. 20 deaths per 100 million is a rate of 2X10-7

To balance the 20 annual cow-deaths against 2-3 pit bull deaths, we'd need a pit bull population of 12.5 million.


Are there that many pit bulls?

[baldguy]

110. How many cows live in NYC?

Millions more people come in contact with dogs on a daily basis than cows.

[Orrex]

111. How many cows attack and kill people out of aggression?

As was noted elsewhere, being accidentally crushed against a gate by a cow is a lot different from being mauled by an aggressive pit bull.

Show me that cows attack out of aggression as often as pit bulls and with equal frequency, and your comparison might start to seem sensible.

[DrDan]

92. I am not sure someone being crushed against a gate is the same thing as a pit bull attack

Here is a reference where 2005-2012 averaged 19 pit bull deaths per year with 2013 expecting over 30.

https://www.causes.com/actions/1753697-fatal-pit-bull-attacks-sharply-rise-in-2013

[Nine]

94. And yet those instincts remain.

Most people who own German Shepherds don't herd sheep, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have small Terriers don't let them chase & kill rats, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have Bull Dogs don't engage in bull-baiting with the dog, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have Bloodhounds don't hunt humans with the dog, they have the dog as a family member & companion.

And yet those instincts remain. Herding dogs who have never been taught to herd, who are meant by their owners only to be companions, STILL WANT TO HERD. Scent hounds want to follow scents. Terriers want to chase and kill small game. And fighting dogs want to fight, which includes attacking quickly without giving off any warning signals. Responsible dog owners deal with these instincts, they don't deny them. If you have a terrier, you don't leave it alone with your pet hamster. If you have a beagle, you fence it in so it doesn't follow its nose right into trouble. If you have a collie, you give it an outlet for its instincts so it doesn't nip at small children in an attempt to herd them. If you have a sight hound, you keep it leashed, knowing it can dash off in a second. Those instincts don't go away just because the owner doesn't desire them. The only way to make the instincts go away is to breed it out of them over generations.

[ohheckyeah]

106. I can attest to that...

I had a boxer that would do everything in his power to get free to herd cows. He jumped out of a car window to go herd cows. He wiggled out of a tightly shut up tent when we were camping and was found a mile away herding cattle. He jumped a fence when he had a cast with a metal rod down his leg, to herd cattle. He was a great dog and very well behaved until he saw a cow and then he was off and running.

He wasn't vicious and even let a toy poodle that belonged to a friend eat out of his bowl with him (the poodle would stand underneath him). He was gentle with children, but by God, he was going to herd cows.

[baldguy]

109. Boxers are hunting & fighting dogs - not herders.

So if the poster above was correct and "instinct remains" for only one aspect of a myriad of breed characteristics & absolutely none of the others, then your boxer would have tried to kill those cows, and kill the poodle & the children as well.

The fact that he didn't put the lie to that posters claim. Of course, it's because that poster is more interested in spreading lies, hatred & fear, to ensure as many innocent dogs as possible will be killed.

[B Calm]

71. The dog needs to put down before he attacks another

innocent child!

[NCTraveler]

81. "Facebook page that has gotten more than 40,000 likes "

Saw a picture of a baby chicken on facebook this morning with over 80 thousand likes. Just a simple picture. Don't think this is taking off like they think it is.

[Orrex]

96. Who knows how many children that damned baby chicken has mauled?

[roody]

83. The dog is better off dead than living

on a chain. The owner should be chained.

[Orrex]

89. The important thing is to insist that the dog is never at fault

If a dog mauls someone, it's because the victim is responsible or the dog's owner is irresponsible. The dog is never ever to blame ever, and it should never face any consequences for its action. Certainly we can't draw any conclusions about the dog or the breed.

But if a dog does something laudable, then the dog is magically transformed into an exemplary representative of its breed, and we must praise it for acting exactly according to its nature.

[DrDan]

95. yes - but when backed into a corner, one can always claim "pit bull" is just a generic term

and that they are impossible to identify with any degree of accuracy.

If, on the other hand, they saved a family from a fire, then "pit bull" is a valid, accurate breed description and the little sweetie deserves full credit.

[LordGlenconner]

97. ...

[Mr Dixon]

98. IMO

Pretty sure most dogs the are chained up would have reacted the same way.

[LostOne4Ever]

100. Im against the death penalty

Whether it be for humans or animals.

[Nine]

102. What's your alternate suggestion? (nt)

[LostOne4Ever]

104. Same it would be with a human

Try and rehabilitate the dog but also lock the dog up somewhere away from people and where it can never hurt another innocent person ever again.

If this was a human being wouldn't that be the general response from the majority of DU?

[XemaSab]

112. What about the animals that die

to give this dog dog food?

[LostOne4Ever]

113. What about them?

Do I wish there were some way for them not to die so the dog could live? Yeah.

But just because of that is no more of an argument against the DP for dogs than it is against humans.