Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« How to Make a Tiny, Fake Orang... | Something Creepy Is Happening ... »

Thursday, October 9, 2008

That Clumsy Homeless Man Must Have Provoked That Dog Somehow

posted by on October 9 at 13:34 PM

This just in from Slog Tipper Matt Fuckin’ Hickey:

This morning at 3rd and Pine, my bus stopped at one of those in-the-middle-of-the-street stops. Three people got on at the back door, one with a pitbull on a leash.

The bus driver said over the intercom, “Sorry, no pitbulls on my bus.”

The guy said, “What? He’s just a puppy, he won’t hurt anyone.”

The driver said, “I don’t care, I’m not comfortable having a pitbull on my bus. I’m sorry, you have to take the next bus.”

The guy (and his pitbull) got off the bus, obviously upset. As I watched out the window, a homeless guy walked by them and bumped the lady he was with. The pitbull bit him on the leg and the bus pulled away. It was surreal.

I’m not sure what happened next. The dog seemed nice enough when they got on the bus, but I think this just illustrates how these animals can be.

Grouse about confirmation bias in the comments.

RSS icon Comments


I, like, totally saw a black person smoking weed in a bus shelter this morning.

Posted by w7ngman | October 9, 2008 1:38 PM

I just took a dump.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 9, 2008 1:41 PM

do not want!

Posted by tiffany | October 9, 2008 1:45 PM

That was me, snowflake.

Posted by w7ngman fan | October 9, 2008 1:49 PM

The other problem is that if we did ban pit bulls, owners of aggressive pets would simply find another breed of dog to neglect, underfeed, and make aggressive.

And then Dan would be calling for us to ban those, too, and so on, until all dogs were banned, then all four-legged animals...

Or we could ensure that domestic animals were treated properly, n' stuff.

Posted by K | October 9, 2008 1:51 PM

@5, so we need to stop allowing people to take their dogs on the sidewalk? is that the neglect you're talking about? i don't see any other neglect.

in the US pit bull bans have worked great and you're completely wrong. dangerous bites in denver are down to practically zero because of the pit bull ban.

Posted by jrrrl | October 9, 2008 1:56 PM

This definitely calls for a really stupid law.

Something approximately as retarded as banning driving with handheld cell phones but not hands-free. Or that 25' smoking ban. I'm talking about the kind of pig ignorant law you can only get when media hype leads the charge.

Hey, what's Tim Eyman up to? Nobody can write a counterproductive new law like Tim can.

Posted by elenchos | October 9, 2008 1:59 PM

My asshole is bleeding - should I be concerned?

Posted by John Bailo | October 9, 2008 2:02 PM

I'm against breed bans in principle, but we really don't have any other choice. We can try to keep the aggressive pitbulls from breeding and hope that future generations will be the loyal cuddly kind, but the problem is that most pitbulls are bred in people's homes by the kind of people who like them for their implication-of-violence reasons, so that would never work.

Since it can't be regulated, and it's dangerous, it should be banned. That does suck for pitbull owners, and I feel bad for them, but it's what needs to happen.

And for the record, I don't think all pitbulls are bad. I've met several that have been amazingly friendly, fun animals. But the problem remains that a large percentage -- maybe even a majority -- of pitbull owners are the types that like the fact that their loving pets could kill someone if it came down to it.

Two weeks ago I was at a house party. One of the housemates didn't like the fact that there was a house party going on that he wasn't told about. So he came out with his pitbull and sicced it on the crowd. When that didn't get everyone off his lawn, he went and got his AK-47. Some people are attracted to instruments of death, and in this guy's case it was guns and pitbulls. It's people like him that will get the breed banned.

Posted by Matt Fuckin' Hickey | October 9, 2008 2:17 PM

"maybe even a majority" of them, you say? those are some pretty damning unscientific non-statistics you've got there. you've certainly made a breed ban believer out of me. off with their heads!

Posted by brandon | October 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Isn't it already illegal to take non-guide dogs on the bus?

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 9, 2008 2:43 PM

#11: No, take all the dogs you want on the bus as long as they're not those awful pit bulls I've been hearing about.

Posted by bus trivia | October 9, 2008 2:44 PM

we dont have any other choice hickey?

i have a choice; stab a pitbull in the throat if it even so much looks at me cock-eyed. ice picks should be mandatory urban gear.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 9, 2008 3:07 PM

K @ 5 -- If we did ban pit bulls, owners of aggressive pets would simply bite us on the leg themselves.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | October 9, 2008 3:11 PM


Nope. Owners are supposed to pay a fare for large dogs, but I've rarely seen that enforced.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 9, 2008 3:35 PM

A pitbull and owner came on my bus the other day, and I got to thinking how much chaos would result in a cramped Metro atmosphere if one pitbull -- any pitbull, ever -- had that switch flipped while in transit. It makes me kinda want to agree with 13 about the icepicks.

Posted by Alicia | October 9, 2008 4:56 PM

i didn't think anything other than guide dogs were let onto buses. the breed is irrelevant, no?

and no, bailo, don't go to a doctor. just sit home eating anti-coagulants. or maybe apply leeches.

Posted by ellarosa | October 9, 2008 6:19 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.