Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on He Must Have Provoked That Dog Somehow

1

Due to over-population, aren't pit bulls, ultimately, good things? They get rid of a lot of pollution. One more person not using plastic bags, not driving, and not using electricity.

Posted by TheMisanthrope | July 23, 2008 9:42 AM
2

Gah! Gaaaah!

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | July 23, 2008 9:44 AM
3

Does it take much work to be that self righteous about someone else’s misfortune

Posted by IHDS | July 23, 2008 9:44 AM
4

if you can, tell us more about the owner of this well-trained canine. name, education level, profession, age, prior criminal record.

also, was the dog fixed?

dogs should NEVER be on a chain. it makes them defensive. always in a gated yard.

Posted by max solomon | July 23, 2008 9:46 AM
5

Gated yard? We had a neighbor with a gated yard, and their killer dog would jump right over with ease. That was a legal-maximum eight-foot fence, too.

Posted by Fnarf | July 23, 2008 9:48 AM
6

I usually ignore Dan's pit bull posts, but in this story, his last sentence is true: it IS the parents' responsibility to make sure their child isn't wandering around.
The article doesn't make it clear whether the parents knew the owner of the dog, or if they lived there or what (sounds like the parents aren't the owners of the dog, though), but why would anyone let their toddler wander into an area where there is a dog chained up? The implication is that the parents weren't in the carport with the child.

Tragic incident all around.

Posted by genevieve | July 23, 2008 9:51 AM
7

Dogs that are treated as part of the family (not dogs that live on chains, or in garages/carports/alone in the yard) are much better off. It is when a dog is treated as an object or "security" (dogs on chains or that LIVE in yards outside the home, rather than inside with the family) that they become aggressive.

Also, where were this kids parents? How did it manage to wander onto someone else's property alone?

Not saying it deserved to be mauled, but parents could have kept that from happening.

Posted by Bella | July 23, 2008 9:53 AM
8

My coworker just sent out an email this morning how she was out walking her dog last night and the poor thing was killed by a pit bull (must have had it coming I guess!) and it broke her knee somehow when it rammed into her as she tried to block it (weird!) now she needs surgery on the knee and will be working from home indefinitely. Damn things, its owner should be tried for assault.

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 10:02 AM
9

All three year olds smell like bacon to dogs, didn't you know that?

Posted by Chris B | July 23, 2008 10:05 AM
10

@6 No, it is the responsibility of the neighbor who should know better than to own a dog that would kill kids in his own neighborhood! I hope he goes to Jail!

The little boy was playing with friends so the mother probably thought the boy was fine. It does not appear that the parents were neglectful.

Posted by mj | July 23, 2008 10:08 AM
11

My girlfriend "wandered" into the laundry room at our apartment complex the other day and was greeted by a snarling pit bull. The owner, apparently thought it was no big deal to take his mongoloid dog into the laundry room without a leash.

I've been a vegetarian for five years, and I consider myself to be an animal rights activist but I would stab a pit bull in the eye if it so much as looked at me funny.

Then I'd go for the owner.

Posted by Bryce Beamish | July 23, 2008 10:18 AM
12

@10: It does not appear that the parents were neglectful.

How do you figure? They let their child wander into a space where a pitbull was chained up.

I'm with genevieve @6. Tragic all around, but you can't pin 100% of the blame on the dog.

Posted by Ryan | July 23, 2008 10:28 AM
13

@11: Would you eat them?

Posted by Darcy | July 23, 2008 10:30 AM
14

Remember, parents, it’s your responsibility to make sure your children understand the dangers of wandering into carports.

Maybe that was a meant as a sarcastic comment, but it needn't have been. Parental responsibility should not be understated; that's the real problem here, not whether certain dogs should be illegal (which seems to be at the top of Dan Savage's agenda now that there are no more wars to start).

The ultimate question is: where were the parents? Sorry folks, that's what it comes down to in every situation such as this. People trying to make it into anything more than that are barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | July 23, 2008 10:34 AM
15

All parents know their children will wander away from them from time to time. It is in their nature. This time, the situation turned out bad. Unlike dogs, parents cannot keep a leash on their kids at all times. This is a tragedy - one fleeting moment when a child gets away.

Posted by CommonKnowledge | July 23, 2008 10:47 AM
16

What do you know. I'm moving to Seattle tommorow and the FIRST thing I'm going to do is adopt a pitbull.

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 10:48 AM
17

Why isn't anyone reading the article? There's a link there for it. That might clear up some questions.

Posted by FAQ | July 23, 2008 11:04 AM
18

@14: Kids totally deserve to die if their parents don't hold on to them 24/7, am I right? Parents need to check behind every car and tree to make sure there are no pitbulls, they can't sneeze or look away for 10 seconds, they can't have babysitters or day care, and they need to walk their kids to school every day until they're 18, or else their kids totally deserve to be eaten alive.

@16: Cool, can I watch with you when it gets euthanized as soon as it kills a child or Seattle passes a breed ban (whatever comes first)?

Posted by girlgerms | July 23, 2008 11:09 AM
19

How about option C ... Dan Savage and his group of street vigilantes take justice into their own hands, take up arms and rid the streets of the vermin themselves!

Breed bans are shit ... why doesn't anyone understand the falicy off the logic ... and dare I say intrussion of civil liberties.

It almost makes me want to vote republican.

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 11:12 AM
20

@14 You get the idiot award of the month!
Congrats!!!

Posted by mj | July 23, 2008 11:14 AM
21

Where are YOUR parents, Seattle Crime Blogger? Do they know you're using the computer without permission again?

Posted by Fnarf | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
22

Are those cans of bionic beer still sitting in Kelly O's office? If so, Dan, here's the solution to all your pit bull worries: Kelly O, Ari Spool and Dan Savage take all the cans of Rize, load 'em in the Strangermobile, drive around the city looking for stray pit bulls... maybe you see where I'm going with this...

Posted by Cookie W. Monster | July 23, 2008 11:33 AM
23

"Animal control will conduct an investigation to determine if the pit bull should be labeled a dangerous dog."

They're not totally sure? An officer couldn't take the bionic dog in one shot?

The owner followed the law. Chaining dogs is A-OK in this burg. They were following local standards, which, being Flori-dai, are Biblical.

Grant the parents their wish. Kill the bionic dog using the high-roast method. That should guarantee that it's really dead. Then serve it to the county government responsible for laws that make it ok to chain up dogs.

Breed restrictions work.

Posted by WenG | July 23, 2008 11:55 AM
24

Oops. Wrong locale. Slow roast with a pepper, brown sugar, ketchup and mustard rub.

Posted by WenG | July 23, 2008 11:59 AM
25

Um, is no one going to point out that a 3 year old was wandering around outside at 9 pm? I'm suddenly reminded of that Dave Chappelle bit about the baby on the street at 3 am.


Still, it's fucking ridiculous that the pit isn't going to be immediately put down. It's already killed one child, how many people does a dog have to maim/kill before it automatically gets euthanized? Who knew that people in Mississippi were so concerned with animal rights.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 23, 2008 12:07 PM
26

Ridiculous. Kids should be free to wander around without being killed and without their parents having to worry about them being killed by a dog. Only a really fucked up person would place the right of assholes to have own pitbulls over the right of children to explore their environment without their parents two feet behind them at all times.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 12:09 PM
27

Only Sloggers would even think of blaming the child in this case or the child's parents.

100% of the blame is the dog and it's owner. PERIOD!

Posted by Andrew | July 23, 2008 12:12 PM
28

Let's start posting every time a homosexual gentleman, anywhere in the world, commits a crime. That will be proof that all homos are criminals, right?

Posted by eric | July 23, 2008 12:13 PM
29

Amen 28

Posted by IHDS | July 23, 2008 12:32 PM
30

Good idea! Why don't you run along over to your little blog and get to work on that RIGHT NOW!

Posted by Fnarf | July 23, 2008 1:05 PM
31

Breed restictions don't work because you can't control breeding. It's very subjective to say something resembles a pitbull and call it a pitbull and then put it down based on someone's heresay. PEOPLE WOULD BE SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER. What is a pit? Especially when you put the workload and burden on an already underfunded animal control.

Animals like to fuck, people like to fuck. If you can control human breeding then you can control dog breeding.

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 1:42 PM
32

Also why I DON'T have a dog, especially a large high maintenence dog. I don't want to do the work.

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 1:45 PM
33

Fuck you @12, fuck you HARD. 100% of the blame does rest with that dog, because it was the one who mauled that child to death. Only in your fucked up world is it the parent's fault for not keeping their child on a leash.

Posted by Brandon J. | July 23, 2008 1:58 PM
34

Furthermore, just to play devils advocate for once. We had a cat as when I was a child that was VERY abused by previous owners and thus was "sensitive" and only was affectionate to the family. She was also an outdoor cat and kept pretty much to herself and the moles in the yard (she brought one home EVERY christmas, and most Easters). Anyways, there was this young odd ball of a kid who used to throw rocks at the cat and then try to pet the cat the next day. You can imagine what happened.

Anyways, when we tried to confront the parents to tell little Mikey to stop throwing rocks at the cat and otherwise leave her alone. The parents were in disbelief that their child would do such a thing! Anyways their older brother state trooper decided to take matters into his own hands and shoot the cat dead a week later.

But like what could we do ... the cat was outdoors durring the day and home at night for 12 years! And not once did we think that they would have the audacity to shoot the cat.

Anyways, kids aren't ALWAYS so innocent, hell nobody is completely inoscent.

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 2:01 PM
35

@34: However, domestic cats do not maul children to death. Further, I doubt the 3-year-old in this case had any rocks.

Posted by Greg | July 23, 2008 2:32 PM
36

@14, "now that there are no more wars to start..." Really? You just proved how much of an imbecile you really are -- dude, there's always a war waiting to happen. Iran? Hello?

Meh.


Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | July 23, 2008 2:36 PM
37

@34 perhaps we are comparing cats and dogs, but have you ever SEEN an infection from a cat bite/scratch! Whoah!

Posted by OR Matt | July 23, 2008 2:44 PM
38

I think the only logical solution to the Pit Bull problem, is to arm the children, and teach them how to shoot. Clearly, these dogs have a vendetta against children. Arm the children, for the children's sake. Any toddler who isn't equipped with a side-arm should be taken away from their parent or guardian immediately, and placed in the custody of the state, so that they may be properly equipped and trained to kill.


Posted by chaosbound | July 23, 2008 3:16 PM
39

If you had read the article, you would know that the dog's owners and two family members were supposed to be watching the child. Obviously, they are as lax about watching children as they are about owning dogs. I also read between the lines that there may be other pit bulls at that location.

"Kill the dog and get the other ones from over there," Moore said. "That could have happened to anybody. It could have happened to their children or to them."

Posted by Silverstar98121 | July 23, 2008 3:19 PM
40

Why do we even allow people to own these death machines in the first place? Ban ALL dogs, regardless of breed! Even the little ones could do tremendous damage to a baby if left alone with one unsupervised!

It's criminal that people keep anything for any reason that could hurt a child.

Posted by Lavode | July 23, 2008 3:41 PM
41

Sorry if I missed this already in the comments somewhere, but Dan, it seems to me you had a golden oppo for a combined pit/every-mother-and-father headline here and missed it. Focus, boy, focus!

Posted by Woof woof | July 23, 2008 3:58 PM
42

While it is always fun for Dan to find these articles and conjure up snappy headlines...several things remain true here: 1) MANY breeds other than Pit bulls attack and kill people 2)The CDC has issued a statement indicating that Breed of dog IS NOT an indication of risk when it comes to predicting dog attacks 3) the parents who let children roam unsupervised ARE as responsible as the negligent dog owner in this case.

Posted by Julie Russell | July 23, 2008 5:19 PM
43

@39 - I did read the article, but it was far less detailed this morning (or maybe the link got changed later). I didn't realize until your comment that there was more information.

The details just prove that the people watching the child (relatives of the child AND the dog owners) were responsible for the mauling by not keeping a close eye on the child. I'd also guess that the dog owners know they have an aggressive dog and they are responsible for inviting a small child into their home with such an animal, or even having a vicious dog in the first place.

Posted by genevieve | July 23, 2008 5:56 PM
44

Gave the kid a little nip, did he? Oh wait, it's not a dog bite story, it's a much more rare "dog kills man" story. That's notable.

I've generally posted in favor of Dan on this (not that anybody should be keeping score, or caring...) and while I'm fairly damned disgusted by those who own such dogs to demonstrate their toughness & macho, there's something else to be considered:

Max @ 4, yes, chaining them up makes them defensive and dickish. That may be the point. I suspect these folks live in a neighborhood where scumbags will steal their meager possessions in a heartbeat, if not for security measures like this.

There are neighborhoods like this, where if you don't have a gun, you at least have to have a dog. I choose to avoid living in such places, but some folks just don't have that financial option.

One solution would be more cops in uniform and more patrols on foot, but that would take, you know, tax dollars, and we can't have that.

Posted by CP | July 23, 2008 6:09 PM
45

@ 44
Not everyone who owns a pit bull owns it for it's tough outward appearance. Some of us appreciate their sensitive nature, loyalty and clownish behavior(despite the media tales of woe).
My two pitties live with a chocolate lab and a tiny Italian greyhound and none of my dogs look tough or mean. Nor do I. Except in the moring or if you come between my and my dinner plate on Taco night:)

Posted by Julie Russell | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM
46

I got all confused thinking about tacos.
BTW:
Other dogs responsible for fatalites this year include Husky-mix, Doberman Pinscher and Jack Russell Terrier (yes the cute little one like on Frasier)

Posted by Julie Russell | July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
47

@45
So breed of dog doesn't indicate any negative behaviour but it can indicate "sensitive nature, loyalty, and clownish behavior?" The CDC might have found that all dogs attack, the issue is the consequences of that attack are so much worse when its a pit bull instead of a weiner dog.
A vicious dog is an attractive nusance, its like leaving a soda bottle with acid in it out where a thirsty child can see it and then blaming the parent when the kid takes a drink without asking.
People who set out to own a pit bull have issues and anthromorphizing some kind of Disney like charateristics to a dog that most people, with good reason, fear doesn't cover that up.

Posted by Mikeblanco | July 23, 2008 7:20 PM
48

@46 - But let's be sure not to tot up the totals of those you mentioned vs. the pit bull totals. 'Cause that would probably, like, get you all pissy and moany, too. Which would totally suck, and stuff.

Eat another taco. It'a all about balance.

Posted by Grrrrrrrr | July 23, 2008 8:04 PM
49

There's a Disney Clown?

Posted by Julie Russell | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM
50

People often talk about whether the breed is to blame. But let's consider for a moment this fact: Pits and other "bully breeds" just so happen to be the types of dogs that appeal to people who think it is appropriate to chain the dog in a car port for years on end, never giving the dog exercise, vet care, relief from biting flies, protection from the elements, etc. In other words, these breeds appeal to people who believe perpetual chaining is an appropriate way to keep a dog, people who DELIBERATELY neglect and their dog and keep in unsocialized so that it WILL BE MEAN. Why oh why do we allow people to keep time bombs at the ends of chains? Why do we allow people to chain up their dogs, and keep it hungry and frustrated, so that it will grow neurotic, aggressive and eventually insane? Check out www.mothersagainstdogchaining.org

Posted by monicas | July 24, 2008 11:37 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.