Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Man mauled. Dog get supporters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:34 AM
Original message
Man mauled. Dog get supporters
A Landscaper Is Mauled, and an Outpouring of Sympathy Goes to the Dog
It’s man versus beast in Princeton, and the town is in an uproar over a dog on death row.

The curious case of Congo, an 85-pound German shepherd sentenced to die for attacking a Honduran landscaper, is making its way through New Jersey’s courts. Protesters have packed the courtrooms here and have staged rallies waving signs that say “Free Congo!” And the landscaper, Giovanni Rivera, who suffered a six-inch bite wound and other injuries, has been vilified by some of the dog’s supporters in this well-to-do Ivy League town, who have been sending newspapers and blogs angry anti-immigrant slurs.

“The dog deserves an award,” said one posting to The Princeton Packet Web site. “One less Mexican alien is a boost to society.”



Read More ...


I'm Speechless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. That poor guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
122. he threw a woman to the ground and the dog reacted appropriatly
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 01:15 PM by natrat
and he gets $250k
yes the racist stuff is horrible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #122
221. I didn't read anywhere in the article that he "threw the woman to the ground"...
he grabbed her and used her as a shield from HER dog.

Then the attack lasted for 3 minutes!! And no one stopped the dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishnfla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Pavlovs theory:
a dog that attacks hispanic immigrants, I bet freepers are salivating at the thought.

Can they train it to torture?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. Those in charge should state:
"based on recent behavior and statements regarding the victim of this attack, the dog will be publicly executed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. "one less Mexican alien is a boost to society"
this is what I'm talking about, the guy is Honduran. People are so full of hate and just plain fucking stupid beyond belief. I am sick of Mexicans being blamed for everything.

Although I don't think the dog should be put down, the owners based on the article, are really flippant about what happened to the guy. They should be ashamed of themselves for being cruel heartless twits but that seems to be the mentality of many people in this country and it is a shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. And....he lived.
???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. and????
sorry don't understand your point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. "One less Mexican"
According to the article, he lived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
66. He was Mexican BEFORE the bite.
After being bitten by a German Shepherd, he became Honduran.

It's basic biology...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #66
163. I see.
But then that's also one MORE Honduran.

I guess the guy likes Hondurans better than Mexicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Cruel and heartless?
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 06:30 PM by CRF450
How so? He recievec 250 grand form their insurance for medical expenses and going through that pain, the way I see it, its an accident that just happened. The whole situation is his fault for running away and grabbing the owner, and also the owners for not putting Congo in the house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. yes, cruel and heartless is exactly what I said
based on the flippant attitude of the comments in the article of the dogs owners. and I'm basing my opinion on the article. So lets not go down the road of how do you know them to make that determination blah, blah, blah cause I can see where this is headed. no where

I am not talking about how the accident occurred either. Its obvious the guy panicked which I think many people would do. It is an unfortunate accident and I hope the dog does not get put down. But the owners obviously were outside when the dog attacked the worker as the worker ran to get behind the owner. They should have put the dog in the house as soon as they knew the workers were there. Its not the first time someone has gotten somewhere early for an appointment.

You see things your way and I will see things my way.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. This is sick. Xenophobia and hatred are getting out of control, when
people cheer something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
161. Save the dog!!! ?
this xenophobia is not only out of control but growing roots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. this was on tv last night...
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 12:11 PM by madrchsod
the hate oozing from this story is sickening...they employed the man because he worked cheaper than anyone else they could find and now it`s all about the dog...what a bunch sick fuckers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. We are truly and rapidly on our way to become a nation of murderous Nazis.
The attitudes are all there.

The dog, you see as and Amerikan Dog! And that beats any possible value the life of an Untermeschen.

Even now, with these types of indcidents becoming so commonplace that one wodners if we are not, right even now at this minute, fully capable of Nazi-level atrocities, if the Bushies wanted to speed up their program and bring their Final Soltuions to the Liberal Problem up and running right this second.

If not yet, we will soon be ready. I stand agape as I watch every step of the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. what a bunch of nasty people. Here's a bit more from the article...
"Congo, Lucia, Shadow, Bear, Hunter and Magnus" These are the names of their dogs.

“It’s horrendous what we’ve had to deal with,” Mr. James said as Congo bounded around their kitchen on Saturday, clenching a stuffed cow that was a homecoming gift. “But we are confident, going forward, that we are going to win this war.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
44. So freaking what? If you name your dog "Bear" you are
a nasty person? What other names make you a nasty person?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. "one less Mexican" people are nasty people. The owners just seem to pick
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:54 PM by uppityperson
macho names for their dogs. And "“It’s horrendous what we’ve had to deal with,” Mr. James said as Congo bounded around their kitchen on Saturday, clenching a stuffed cow that was a homecoming gift. “But we are confident, going forward, that we are going to win this war.”" gives me pause. But I meant the nasty ones are the "one less Mexican" ones, which I see now is only 1. So, nasty person. Wrote too fast.

eyeroll back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Don't want to rain on the parade but I have a little different take
In the first place there was nothing in the article suggesting Mr. Rivera was an illegal immigrant. He was hired by the family that owned the dog, he was at the residence on business, and landscaping is hard, hard work. So any of the nasty racist comments are not provoked by the dog's action or the family's actions but rather the posters' own racism and xenophobia.

Thank goodness Mr. Rivera wasn't harmed any worse than he was, and he appropriately got a large $ settlement to help pay his bills and I hope compensate him for pain and suffering.

It seems that the problem here is that the law is too severe or rigid, from what I can tell on this article, regarding the dog's fate, and that --not the ethnicity of the victim or whether people are less important than animals--is what's upsetting most people. From the description in the story it was understandable to me why the dog reacted as it did (to protect the family when Mr. Rivera got scared and grabbed the mom of the family) and the dog had no history of viciousness. So without knowing more of the facts, I would say the problem is that either the judge was a bit overzealous in ordering it put down or the law is too rigid to take into account relevant facts and circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. I agree, and like I said in my earlier post, German Shepherds can go after a running stranger
without hesitation, even if they're the most friendliest dog to its owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. People who place more value on an animal's life
than on the life of their fellow human beings have psychological problems, IMHO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. The charges in this situation are way too harsh for the dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
95. I wonder if you would feel that way if it were your ass
this dog took a big bite out of....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #95
126. It wouldn't happen to me because I wouldn't freak out and be a dumbass like this landscaper
was. Had he'd stay calm this whole situation wouldn't have happened.

I'v been bittin by a German Shepherd when I was a kid just riding my bicycle down the road, the dog just ran out to road and bit me for reason. Its front canine teeths just grazed across my leg, no deep wounds or anything like that. I didn't freak out and start hitting it, I just yelled at the dog as loud as I could and kept on riding, then it went back into its yard. That dog had a history of attacking people, and I dont know how the owners have managed to keep it for so long. Those people were real dicks, they wouldn't keep that dog and the three other Germand Shepherds they had chained out, fenced in, or kept in the house or whatever, they just let the dogs roam around freely.

In the situation in the article, the guy didn't follow the owners instructions, they arrived an hour early, the owners told them to stay in the vehicle so they can put the dogs in the house. The guy panicked, hit the dog with a rake, ran towards the owner and grabbed her, pulled her to the ground, and she scream while being pulled down. Congo saw this as an attack and acted by instinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #126
160. I don't accept your failed logic.
When you invite someone to your home, it is your responsibility to reason that the person could arrive early... You are responsible to that end.. People don't show up exactly on the spot, some are early, some are late, some are on time.. When you have animals roaming around and you are expecting company that was invited by you over, it is your responsibility to make sure that these situations are avoided. As the property owner, you are responsible...

I wonder if anyone would feel this way if the recipient of the attack was a five year old little white girl? Just saying :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #160
176. well
if a tradie came to my house and ignored my request to stay away while I put the dogs out, then hit my dog with a rake and then grabbed a female member of the house (it'd have to be me) and dragged her to the ground, I would be speechless if my dog didn't attack. She doesn't know the difference between a tradesman assaulting her owner and a rapist.

I can guarantee you my dog would not be getting destroyed in that situation. I would do what several Australians in similar situations have done and secret her away to a friend's place before the council had a chance to sieze her.

We really don't have an issue with prejudice towards Central American undocumented workers here though and my tradie is more than likely going to be a white bloke, so I'm wondering, if it's not racism what could possibly be fueling my feelings? :eyes:

Just because some (hey maybe it's most) people who oppose the decision to destroy the dog might be knuckle dragging bigot scum doesn't mean they all are. After all knuckle dragging bigot scum probably agree with you that water is wet, doesn't make you one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #176
202. If a laborer came to your house, yes, but if invited no...
I have lived in the same set of circustances... A large property with kennels and we would let the dogs run when the gate was locked, but when we were expecting company, the first thing you do, is put up the dogs... It's not rocket science... Put up the dogs and unlock the gate.

If I invite someone onto my property, regardless if they arrive early or not, it is up to me to secure my animals to avoid this type of situation....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #202
243. I agree. It's not rocket science.
I love dogs, and I hate that a dog has to be put down, but it's the owners' fault. They were irresponsible in the first place for allowing it to happen, and then they didn't even take the deal they should have rightfully taken to save the dog. They sound like pieces of work to me, and I don't get why they're getting so much support. Irresponsible dog owners infuriate me, and I'm dismayed to see the support they're getting. That dog will probably die, and it is their fault. Dog lovers should be putting the blame squarely where it belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #202
271. you are 100% right
i think the general approach is that whatever the dog does is the owner's responsibility. i'm sure there are exceptions, but in general, the dog is not a moral agent acting under the influence of the law, but instinct and training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #160
341. Moreover
WHENEVER I go into somebody's house and they have dogs that bite, they lock or chain the dogs before I come in. It's basic courtesy.

Perhaps the dog's owner didn't think people with darker skin and names ending in vowels are worthy of such courtesy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darth_Kitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #126
204. Then I guess the guy is at fault, because, hey.......
he didn't "react" the "right" way to a vicious dog. Whatever. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
October Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #126
279. How do you know?
Good God, were you there? You're only reading the owner's account. You have no idea how things would've gone had you been the one attacked.

My neighbors have a very friendly Rottweiler, yet I worry the dog will attack my son if he "perceives" him to be a threat to the famiy when the kids are rough-housing.

Dogs don't always know what a threat is. They're dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #279
290. How do I know?
German Shepherds wont usually attack a stanger if he/she stays calm and dont make any sudden fast movements. I'v been around these breeds alot, trust me. This guy, didn't stay in the vehicle like the owners had instructed him, he saw the dog possibly running towards his way, he freaked out and started running or (according to the other articles) hit the dog with a rake, ran towards the owner, grabbed her and pulled her to the ground.


The guy changed his story three times, and the control sheriff had notes from eye witness's. And some how their lost because one of the dogs in the vehicle ate the notes, which I call bullshit on. That animal control sheriff is peice of shit, and so is that judge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #126
319. Quite possibly; but not everyone has experience or knows how to handle dogs..
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 07:14 AM by LeftishBrit
and some people are phobic of dogs, or just a bit impulsive. Or even silly - that doesn't mean that it's fine if dogs attack them. It could easily have been a child who panicked and got attacked.

Not saying that the dog should necessarily be put down; but I suspect that the owners may not have trained the dog properly. If their instant reaction is 'one less Mexican!" then it sounds as though they may be tough-guy types who have trained their dogs to be aggressive.

ETA: Sorry, I realize on reading more carefully that it wasn't the owners who said this, but a supporter. Still, I suspect some lack of training of the dog. The victim may also not have been trained in dog-handling, but until that becomes part of the school curriculum, one has to allow for the fact that not everyone knows how to deal with dogs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
index555 Donating Member (166 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
121. Not necessarily
I was bit by a German Shepard once, It was just a single quick bite on the arm(puncture from the canine teeth, no tearing), but the dog ran across the street from it's yard to bite me (I was 12 at the time).
two months later, the same dog put a kid in the hospital, with a punctured lung, torn face , and other injuries.
The kid was selling some kind of fund raising thing.
The dog in the article should be destroyed, it has proven that it can not be trusted, and may commit further unprovoked attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. It wasn't an unprovoked attack -- he was protecting his master, mate, and puppies
The man attacked the dog and puppies with a rake (one puppy needed medical attention) then ran to the owner and grabbed her.

I have a 7-month-old border collie puppy that I've had for 10 days, who is already protective of my wife & I. If some man ran across the yard and grabbed myself or my wife, I would expect my dog to attack that man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #123
175. I've got to agree - I'm on the dog's side here. They were told
to stay in the car until the dogs were put up, the dog was only protecting it's master and puppies, I would expect any dog to react this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #175
272. you are indicating the penalty for not following the command is getting mauled
no, no. please find a law that justifies your position and post it here.

the guy should have stayed off the property, but the owners are still culpable that someone who was not a threat was mauled by their pet.

the penalty for not following a direction is not 6-inch lacerations and blood loss. it don't work that way bub --that type of law is for dictatorships which people posting here should oppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #272
363. If someone has a guard dog and say, on a car lot and the dog
is out, and I'm told, "stay in your car" and I get out anyway, my PENALTY is probably going to be I'm going to get bitten. That would be MY FAULT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #363
375. not under the law and not when you are invited to someone's property
a direction shouted across the yard doesn't mean that the person getting the direction (if it was decipherable or audible to him --remember he was in a truck!) not getting or following the direction does not legally absolve the owner of responsibility to prevent the attack.

those are the rules...i don't care what your reasoning is, you don't write the rules for these things. these people have lawyers, not lawyers to listen to what YOU think is logical, but to deal with the legal issues surrounding it, something that you are ignoring here, time and time again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #121
127. Thats a different situation you went through.
READ THE ARTICLE! The guy freaked out, ran towards the owner, grabbed her and pulled her to the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #121
209. From what I'm reading,
it's proven just the opposite - the dog CAN be trusted - to protect it's family which is part of why a lot of people have dogs. If someone grabbed me and pulled me down, my otherwise dopey, friendly, good natured yellow lab would have reacted the same way - and I'd be damn proud of him for doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #209
273. no, the dog cannot be trusted because he did not follow the owners' command to stand down
be consistent

if you think the landscaper got what was expected for not following an order, which was getting mauled, lacerated and bloodied

then the dog got what was expected for not following an order, which was to stop attacking and there is a penalty for that too.

but you are being inconsistent and you don't even realize it.

i don't think a guy should be attacked unless he is a threat (i don't care what a dog thinks is a threat). and i think if an owner can't prevent his dogs from attacking, he should not own any dogs and unfortunately, that puts his own dogs in jeapardy because they are a threat to others if he can't control them and they have harmed others aside from legitimate self-defense, which this was not because the owners did not feel threatened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. if you read the story, you'll find that's a false dichotomy.
Don't just rely on the OP. Read the full story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
52. Uh reading the whole article
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 08:00 PM by Raine
might help...it's not a choice of one over the other.

Edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedleyMisty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
258. People who think that humans are more important and worth more than other species
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 08:27 AM by sleebarker
and that it's okay to just kill and torture and abuse other species at will have deep moral and ethical problems, imo. Probably psychological ones too - you know people who torture small animals (like Bush and his firecrackes up frogs) grow up to be serial killers. And people who go home and kick their dog after a bad day at work are projecting their problems into an innocent being and making the innocent being suffer.

Humans do not have dominion over other species, no matter what your stupid little holy book says. We all share this planet together and are all of equal priceless worth. Sure, I get mad at humans for being so freaking ignorant and stupid and destructive and hateful and selfish, but really in the end if hard pressed I would say that one human equals one other being in worth.

Why can't the dude just get medical care and training in how to handle dogs or stay away from dogs or whatever, and the dog can just go on and be a dog?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #258
352. Exactly, I can think of many animals I'd protect over human lives.
As an example: If I saw an asian lion attacking a human child, and I had a rifle in hand, I wouldn't shoot the lion. Why not? Because asian lions are critically endangered and humans are not. Sounds callous, I know, but I would never sentence a species to extinction just to save one human being, or even a whole city full of them. Hell, our population is so high that you could wipe a billion of us off the planet, and the population would fully recover in 50 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. it will become a real issue when animals begin to trump white people...nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. Back to "Reading Comprehension" Class...
Wow, this is a really first-rate encapsulation of a report. After giving no details whatsoever on the nature of the incident--you don't want those readers thinking for themselves--you then skip off entirely from the story, and quote from an unrelated, hateful website message board posting! Wonderful! I don't notice you complaining when DUers call women "bitches," please tell me when you have. According to the (un-quoted, by you ) report, "The facts of the attack are in dispute. The Jameses say that the landscapers arrived earlier than expected and that Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James." This would probably be the source of your dog protection-attack, there, Sherlock. Further, a judge sentenced the dog to death as a "vicious dog" even though there are no prior incidents; that would be what we call "illegal."

Yes, this family seems to be a bunch of insufferable rich people, and they are personally repugnant. The incident was horrifying and the victim rightly compensated. It is annoying, though, to have to go through this shit, over and over, where you have to go to a link just to clear up the completely lying slant on a posting here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Ain't no such thing as a bad dog
Only bad owners - and I speak as someone who has to deal with strange dogs as part of my work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. According to the article, it appears the dog was doing his job.
I do feel sorry for the man who was attacked, as those look like nasty bites.

The nasty racial bias in the backstory is idiotic at best. Morons.

Oh, and :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. the racism isn't the "backstory"...
It IS the story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Wrong.
According to the article, the racist comment came from one person posting a website. It's just one stupid random yahoo. (Unless you're suggesting that the dog is a racist...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
67. Of course the dog is racist!
It's a German Shepard--a freakin' Nazi dog!





I just violated Dogwin's Law didn't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Baahahahaha!
"Dogwin's Law" ...

That was a good'un!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #67
76. If there's ever been a DUzy...
this is it.

Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
91. Excuse me? This story is big news at STORMFRONT...
Google the story and read the commentary at all the blogs and message boards. It's not "just one stupid random yahoo". I wish it were.

Racist sentiment is absolutely driving this.


The question is, whose lives and safety do we value more: brown people, or dogs?


It can't be both. This is a hierarchical society, and any measure of equality among humans is hard won and always threatened. The outpouring of support for the dog from whites, plus their vilification of and contempt for the mauled workman add up to a clear statement: Hispanic workers are literally worth less than dogs, as far as they're concerned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCappedBandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. Absolute scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. I wonder what they'd say if the dog mistook their child for "One less Mexican"
I have a feeling that their compassion for a vicious dog might change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
17. Disgusting article from the Trentonian:
PRINCETON TWP. — Death row dog Congo won temporary freedom yesterday. And like any red-blooded American out on bail after a long stint in jail, the big dog went home and celebrated by eagerly mounting mate Lucia amid happy onlookers and flowing champagne.

New York City TV crews and other media last night crowded into the palatial home of Guy and Elizabeth James. The couple has been waging a five-month legal battle to free Congo ever since he was sentenced to death for mauling a gardener the dog feared was hurting his family.

An elated Guy James said he was thankful for the thousands of e-mails he has received from people all over the world.

“What I understand is there was some kind of march in Chicago the same day we had our rally in Princeton,” he said amid the party atmosphere. “It’s just been unbelievable.”



:puke:


Unbelievable? Not really. When haven't rich folks been unanimous in considering their serfs to be worth less than dogs?


http://wigglypups.typepad.com/wiggly_pups/2007/11/congo-free-for.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
61. I think the article is very touching.
Obviously the family is going to worry about their dog.
This to me does not look like the dog's fault. The dog, it appears, was only trying to protect the owner. The gardener was scared of the dogs, but as he was allegedly running and trying to use the owner as a shield, is going to get any dog upset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #61
96. oh, of course you do...
Obviously the family is going to worry about their dog.
This to me does not look like the dog's fault. The dog, it appears, was only trying to protect the owner. The gardener was scared of the dogs, but as he was allegedly running and trying to use the owner as a shield, is going to get any dog upset.



It's not the dog's "fault" because the dog isn't a moral agent. It's not capable of exercising responsibility in the human sense. It's just a dog, which is also why it doesn't have a "right" not to be seized and destroyed should its behavior prove a hazard to the human population.


This situation is the owners' fault. They're the ones who allowed their animals to menace and attack the workers they'd hired.


Like I told the other guy, the Jameses were offered a deal: allow the dog to be declared potentially dangerous, and take certain measures to control it from then on. They refused, took their chances on a full hearing, and lost. That's nobody's fault but theirs. If they'd bothered to take their responsibilities to their dog a little more seriously early on, none of this would be happening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #96
274. your post is exactly correct, i just wish so many people weren't disagreeing
with the obvious logic and laws involved here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #274
324. oh, man, CreekDog...
I'm telling you... The sheer lack of comprehension on the part of some in this thread -- I've never seen anything quite like it.


But howdayooo KNOW they're backyard breeders?!!1!?


:banghead:


Gawd, how many times have they made us explain the most basic facts of the case so far? I've lost count.



Anyway, welcome to our 'We Might As Well Be Arguing With A Wall' club, CreekDog. I hope you'll have more success reasoning with some folks than I've had.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #324
335. I haven't had any more success :)
That's why I belong to the :banghead: club. But glad to be here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
178. I'd be pissed off if I owned the dog too
must remember to tell my landlord that I'm rich, then maybe I can buy this tiny 1 bedroom flat I'm renting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
222. It's Guy James dog? Noooooooooo!
oh, differnt guy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
19. That is a sickening story.nt
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 05:33 PM by nam78_two
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
21. OMG.
I don't know what to say...this is pure insanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. Do people even know anything about German Shepherds??
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 06:23 PM by CRF450
A protective Shepherd will go after a stranger who runs around alot or away, I'v seen it happen a few times. It obvious to me that from the dogs view the poor guy acted with hostility by running away from the dog and grabbed the one of the owners taking that action as an attack. If he had stayed calm and didn't try to run, he most likely wouldn't have gotten attacked. The whole situation is his fault and the owner's too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #22
260. yes, a gardener from Honduras is expected to know the psychology of German Shepherds
Are you joking or actually ignorant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #260
289. Am I joking? NO
Thats how German Shepherds (a protective breed) are, if they see hostile movement around their owners from a stranger, they usually will go after that person! I'v been around these breeds alot because right much of my friends had them. Their are a few exceptions where they can be friendly to anybody just about nomatter how they act. Some neighbors that used to live accross the road from me had a white female German Shepherd, a beautiful dog BTW. That dog was nearly as friendly as my two Golden Retievers! But the other Shepherds they had before the white one were all agressive towards hostile activity from a stranger. One of the kids I used to hang out with got bit in the ass cause he kept running around alot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #289
294. Fine, but the gardener is not expected to know that to avoid being mauled
that was my point.

the owners needed to control their dogs and they needed to prevent this from happening --the victim is not responsible for the dog's behavior (not legally).

the owners did not control their dog and now the dog may pay the price for the owners' lack of responsible care of their animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
25. He should sue the owner's socks off.
They're the responsible parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. Have you even tried to read the article?
He already got a settlement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
31. He got $250,000.00 from the owners.
I could care less if this guy is an illegal immigrant or not and those making racist comments should be ashamed because it has nothing to do with wht happened. The dog isn't racist. He thought he was protecting his owner from a strange man that grabbed her in his yard. It's a terrible situation, but to kill the dog for doing exactly what he was supposed to do is obscene!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm beyond speechless
Are these people still human? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
34. What's the whole story behind this?
There sure isn't enough info in the OP to decide what really happened.

Before you attack me, let me tell you a short story from my own home. We had a Standard Poodle who was my oldest childs best buddy (my son was 3 years old at the time.) This dog never groweled, barked or showed any emotion other that rapid tail wagging and a smile. At Christmas time my inlaws were visiting and I heard a grrr roowf! Then instantly heard my neice (age 10) crying. I ran into the living room to find out what happened! Turns out my neice tried to shove her fist down the dogs throat! He didn't bite her or anything, but scared the sh*t out of her. My only point is, until you have the whole story, you shouldn't make a judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I read the entire news story and not the cherry-picked comments by the OP.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:33 PM by peacebaby3
Here's what happened:

The family hired someone to come and take care of their lawn. I'm not sure if it was this guy directly or he worked for the company they hired. They had let the dog out in the yard and this guy and the rest of the crew showed up early and came into the yard. The female owner came out of the house toward them and then this guy saw the German Shepard in the yard. He freaked out and took off toward and grabbed the female owner. When he did, the German Shepard went after him. The dog has no history of aggression and I saw him in a video playing and licking all over the 2 young children in the family (a girl probably 8-10 and a boy around 4-6). He is a family pet and the children were crying, begging for his life to be spared. The man got $250,000.00 in a settlement from the family. In the meantime, somebody found out the guy who was attacked was an illegal immigrant and decided to make racist comments, etc. The family said in the interview that this had nothing to do with immigration, they are just trying to save their dog's life and they feel the man basically attacked the mother. I doubt that was the case. The man was probably scared, but I'm sure the family is saying it now because they are trying to save their dog. I'm sure the dog believed that this stranger was attacking his owner.

Edit: Just to be clear, I read the story in the OP and saw a video news report online to gather more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. yes, when I read the story at first
I thought it sounded very strange that the injured man had grabbed the mom, but in reading further I found that apparently that really did happen--that that was not in dispute. I'm not blaming the victim here and glad he received compensation. I am saying only that that is very odd behavior and that the dog very understandably could have been behaving protectively. Racism is wrong, but it is also wrong to euthanize a dog given the facts that the story outlined. It's not a matter of choosing people over dogs. And two wrongs don't make a right. If the story misrepresented things, obviously I might feel differently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #38
179. Racism means nothing to me in this, albet it is disgusting
some of the comments. From what I can garner the man disobeyed instructions to not get out of the car until the dogs were put up, and knew that, and then grabbed the owner and she was pulled to the ground, something ANY DOG would perceive as an attack. I'm kinda on the dog's side here, no matter who the other person was, black, red, brown or white.

If someone has a fenced in yard with "beware of dog" on it and someone enter's that yard, aren't they responsible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #179
192. if someone is in a car on your property with your permission...
... then they're on your property with your permission -- period.


Bottom line? If you haven't got your potentially dangerous dogs under control, don't allow visitors on your property at all until you've rectified the situation -- or else, you may find yourself liable for whatever happens next. It's not rocket science.


If someone has a fenced in yard with "beware of dog" on it and someone enter's that yard, aren't they responsible?



Sigh.


The workers were already ON the property at Mr. James' request. He told them to sit in the truck ON the property until Mrs. James had come out to deal with the pack.

She came out, and the workers got out of the truck and began getting ready to start working.

The attack occurred after that.


Was there miscommunication between the Jameses and the workmen? Probably. That can happen when you insist on hiring "undocumented" workers who can't speak your language, especially if you're not as fluent in theirs as you think you are.



Oh, and by the way: one of the Jameses' dogs was found off the property while the attack was taking place back at the ranch. So I wonder how sound that fence is.


http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:WBfO81LRyaEJ:packetonline.com/articles/2007/11/16/the_princeton_packet/news/doc473dbbd03cd0c627045081.txt+james+congo+10-acre+rivera&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #192
213. Actually they were not. They came early from the article
I read. That is NOT with your permission. If I tell you to come at 2 pm and you show up at 1 or 12:30 you DO NOT have my permission to be on my property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #213
224. and if they show up early, and you let them and their vehicle onto your property ANYWAY...
And you tell them to sit in their vehicle, ON YOUR PROPERTY, then you HAVE allowed them onto your property!

And if some miscommunication causes the workers to leave their vehicle before all your dogs are securely penned up, then it's too bad for you, because you ARE liable for the consequences. Because your visitors are on your property with your permission, even if they misunderstood your instructions and zigged when you told them to zag.


THAT is what happened, and THAT is why there was NO trespassing involved. Look: even Jameses themselves aren't claiming that the workers were trespassing.



Is that clear now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #224
248. I'm sorry I disagree. They were told to stay in the truck.
I'd like to know if this man understood English. It would make a huge difference on what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #248
276. so he deserves to get mauled because he didn't follow a direction?
is that the way it works in your world?

no law or moral here in the USA justifies what you are justifying.

it's just shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #276
358. No one said anything about "deserving" to get mauled. But he
disobeyed the owner's direct request because the dogs were out. That is like walking into a yard where there is a "Beware of Dog" sign and getting mad if you get bitten, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #248
349. you just won the title for Most Ironic Post of the thread...
I'm sorry I disagree. They were told to stay in the truck. I'd like to know if this man understood English. It would make a huge difference on what happened.



Yeah, I was wondering something similar...


This, after I'd just explained to you that permitting visitors to come onto your property in a car = permitting those visitors to come onto your property = exposing yourself to liability if they misunderstand your instructions and get out of the car too soon and your dog eats them alive.


I've factored this down for you as far as it'll go. I can't really make it any simpler.


:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #349
362. You can factor it all you want. If he understood English and was
told to not get out of the car because the dogs were out, he was NOT invited I'm sorry. Also up topic someone made the comment about "don't we usually blame this on pit bulls" or something to that nature. I would say the guy is damn lucky it wasn't a pit or he'd be dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #362
374. and if he didn't understand English, or didn't hear the direction through the window
and over perhaps barking, then what?

the fault lies with who then? so far you are blaming the victim. but if he did not hear, could not understand or some other reason, whose fault then?

and did the victim get what he deserved? yes or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #374
391. If he did not understand the command, I would be more on his
side of things. He cannot be warned if he doesn't understand the warning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #224
275. it's clear to me, you couldn't have stated it any clearer or better
but some people keep insisting that the guys "didn't listen" and thinks for that they got what they should have expected.

when that Utah State Trooper tasered a guy whom he accused of speeding, the Trooper justified it by saying the guy, "didn't follow my orders".

people here at DU found that horrendous, and so did i.

the same people should find it horrendous that for not following directions you get mauled, bloodied, etc. etc. but in this case, they justify it.

wrong all the way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #275
291. That bullshit
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 04:46 PM by CRF450
He got mauled because he freaked out, ran towards the owner and grabbed her. He didn't get attacked just by getting out of the vehicle or not by following the owners instruction. Its unfortunate that it happend, but it just did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #291
295. and the owner needed to make sure that he didn't get mauled
the owner did not do that, now the dog may be without his original owner and may be put to sleep.

and by the way, if a child did what the gardener did and got mauled, would you still say it's the kid's fault?

hmmm?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #295
298. The owner did not do do that
Because 1, they came an hour earlier than expected.

And 2, the guy ran towards her, grabbed her, and pulled her to the ground. What was she suppose to do at that moment?? She's not fuckin superman.

Its really an accident that no one at the scene expected becuase according to them, the dog has always been very friendly and has never had a history of being agressive. Maybe thats because no one their did what the landscaper guy did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #298
299. if they had controlled the dog, the whole scene would not have happened
that's what they did not do, that's what they should have done.

there really is no excuse. you are justifying the behavior of an out of control dog.

the fact is the dog did what he wasn't supposed to do and the owners either didn't try to stop it or couldn't stop it. that's inexcusable.

stop justifying their lack of responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #299
306. I'm not justifying the dogs behavior, I'm just stating the facts
It shouldn't have heppened, but it did because Congo thought his owner was being attacked. The dog has no history of being agressive, their has been other workers and deliviery people who say Congo was very friendly and docile. This incident happened because that landscaper reacted with fear and hostility, and the rest you should know resulting in the attack.

I doubt it could have been prevented, because again, the workers arrived much earlier than expected, and the dog's known friendly nature untill the worker freaks out suddenly.

I dont know why you cant see it, but the owners dont deserve to lose Congo and the rest of their dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #306
316. DFTT ...
I'm 100% with you but there appear to be a few people here with "an agenda" ...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #316
328. I agree, and its infuriating that they cant accept whats been discussed countless times...
By the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #328
334. The majority here is wrong
they have misstated the law, the have misrepresented what happened and they have blamed the victim for what the dog did that the owner could not control.

if someone says the wrong thing 100 times, it does not make it any more correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #316
333. so the dog should just go back to the owner, even though they could not control it?
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 12:51 PM by CreekDog
because that's what you are agreeing 100% to.

and my "agenda" is that people control their pets and that is the law anyway.

got a problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #333
339. The laws for pet control are very flawd in this curcumstance.
If the landscaper had not done anything but just stand still and Congo attacked him anyways, yes the dog should be put down. But due to the curcumstances that lead to the attack here, the family should not lose Congo and the rest of their dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #306
332. the penalty for what happened is that the owners lose their dog
you just said what happened was not justified.

it's the owner's responsiblity to control their dog --they didn't. a guy ended up in the hospital for 5 days, spent 3 hours in surgery had dozens of rabies shots, etc. etc.

and you expect that everything goes back to the way it was? the dog goes back to the owners and they all live happily ever after?

NO, things don't go back to the way they were --people have been killed by dogs whose owners could not control them that's why when an incident happens, action is supposed to be taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #298
367. You know what? I find it ironic that so many people are blaming
the dog and I remember when Roy got mauled by his white tiger and people couldn't come to the Tiger's defense FAST ENOUGH by saying it was really a "protective" grab on the Tiger's part.

Unreal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #367
368. Hell yeah...
Although we humans are bigger overall than a German Shepherd, these dogs and other large breeds are more powerful than a 160lbs man or woman when they're pissed off!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #367
373. we have been blaming the OWNERS
have you not been reading these messages. the OWNERS are responsible, they are in the wrong, the dog did nothing wrong, the owners were wrong to not control the dog. as a result of those actions, the dog may be taken away and/or put down --but that is the owners fault. dog's are not expected to follow any laws, but their owners are responsible to see that their dogs don't attack people out of anything but self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #373
389. I think that grabbing a woman and falling to the ground with
qualifies for self defense. That is what people are saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #295
305. Hmm...I don't expect a child to beat a puppy with a rake to the point it needs vet care
Or for a child to grab an adult woman and take her down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #295
366. He did make sure. He told the guy "stay in the truck" and went
to put up his dogs. The man disobeyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #366
372. the man "disobeyed", maybe the man didn't hear, maybe the man didn't understand the order
so he "deserved" to get mauled?

please answer Jean, you keep dodging this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #372
390. That is because none of us know the answer to that. And as
I stated up thread, it would change my mind if I knew for sure that he did not know what "stay in the truck" meant. Does anybody know this answer, and how can we find out?

I'd also like to know if his brother's company was fined and under investigation, and was this guy deported after he got his 250 grand? Lots of unanswered questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #291
365. Thank you! A voice of sanity.....................
My father in law used to own a Bull Mastiff. When he was on the "chain" he was a most vicious dog. He had "beware of dog" signs all over his property. Twice over the years people decided to ignore the signs and come into the yard anyway (one was for theft). The dog mauled both people and the court ruled the people were to blame. Another time, a guy down the street owned two dobbies who knew exactly how long his chain was (it ran from the back around the side to the front yard) and they would tease him unmercifully. One day they got unlucky. He pulled out the chain stab and killed them both. Again, the court ruled the owner of the dobbies at fault.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Exactly. It sounds like the dog just wanted to protect his owner.
The guy was scared of the dogs and it appears he was using the owner as a cover. The dog obviously wouldn't understand. Frankly, it appears the dog was only trying to protect his owner.
Why should he be put down for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
180. Agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
261. you need to protect people from your dog unless you are actually threatened
The man was not threatening, he was there for a job, thus he was no threat to the owner or anybody on the property.

He was attacked by the dog.

The owner is responsible, period. What a dog "thought" is not a valid defense by the owner in response to his/her dog injuring somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #261
262. You need to read the article
You claim:
> The man was not threatening, he was there for a job, thus he was no
> threat to the owner or anybody on the property.

The OP article stated both the owner's version of events and the worker's
version and they BOTH admit that the stranger was man-handling the owner:

>> The Jameses say that ... Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed
>> Mrs. James.
>> Mr. Rivera ... argued that he was merely trying to get away from the dogs
>> and was using Mrs. James as cover when he was mauled.

Both version of the event confirm that Mrs.James was being held against
her will by a complete stranger. Regardless of the events that may or may
not have taken place prior to grabbing the owner, the fact that the stranger
grabber the owner justifies the dog to act to protect his owner.

If you can't understand that, you are particularly ignorant about dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #262
265. Please don't tell me to read an article I read
I read the multiple versions.

She never stated that she felt threatened or that she was threatened.

What the dog "thought" is not the issue, Hitler's dog thought he was a great guy!

The issue is that self defense is not justified unless one legitmately thinks they are threatened --Mrs. James did not feel threatened, or did not state that she did, but her dog attacked the gardener anyway. That was wrong, the dog's owners are responsible, end of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #261
396. The dog didn't know that. When he grabbed the woman, his
Edited on Fri Dec-07-07 06:08 AM by JeanGrey
pack leader, he was a threat, period.

Look I own a minature schnauzer that will (and has) thrown herself inbetween myself and pit bull running out of their yard in an attack mode. I can assure you she perceived that as a threat.

Grabbing your pack leader and falling to ground would be considered threatening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. If you read the article then you are fully aware that the FIRST four paragraphs from story
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:38 PM by flashl
is present and not "cherrypicked". In addition, a link was provided to give any interested reader the opportunity to read the entire story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Nope.
You only posted the first three paragraphs and you could have very easily chosen to put different content to get some of both sides of the story to post something objective. As you can tell by numerous posts on this thread, most people don't bother to click on the links. It's quite common on DU for people to become outraged before checking out all the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
59. I had to go back and check because I didn't see a link when I first
read your posting. Yes, I see it's under the pic, but I'm soed to seeing a regular longer blue link beginning witn the www that I missed it.

I honestly don't see any racism in this story other than someone felt it important to insert the "illegal immigrent" in there, which really has no bearing on what happened. I only have little fluffy dogs now, but I have to tell you, if they though someone was hurting ME, you can bet your life they'd do their very best to protect me and hurt my attacker!


There certainly are circumstances where dogs are raised to be attackers, and I was one of the first to call for the euthanizing of the dogs in that California apartment building who simply attacked and killed one of the residents, but that's not what happened here.

If this fella wants to continue to do lawn work, he really needs to contact the people who would hire him and explain his fear of dogs, or if he is an employee of a lawn maintence company, he needs to tell his employer to insure there are NO DOGS around.

This story turned out bad for everybody!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. More info from the article ..
State Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Democrat from Union, has introduced legislation, which he calls Congo’s Law, that could spare the life of Congo and other dogs in similar situations by giving judges more discretion in meting out punishment.

And now, thousands of people from Princeton and elsewhere are petitioning the governor for a pardon. (There is precedent for such things in New Jersey.)

In a letter to The Princeton Packet on Tuesday, a resident, Jonathan Eckstein, wrote: “I urge the State Legislature to vote down this absurd legislation and put the rights of human beings like Mr. Rivera above those of domestic animals, however tragically misunderstood. I would hate my hometown and home state to go down in history as the place where suburbanites valued their dogs above the lives of those they hire to tend their yards.”

Congo, having been granted a stay of execution, is muzzled and under house arrest, as his owners await a decision on their appeal.

It started in June, when Mr. Rivera, 42, and a crew of day laborers arrived early in the morning at the house of Guy and Elizabeth James, the owners of six shepherds — Congo, Lucia, Shadow, Bear, Hunter and Magnus.

The facts of the attack are in dispute. The Jameses say that the landscapers arrived earlier than expected and that Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James. It is unclear what role the other dogs played. Mr. Rivera, who received a $250,000 settlement from the Jameses’ homeowners’ insurance company, argued that he was merely trying to get away from the dogs and was using Mrs. James as cover when he was mauled.

The next day an animal control officer took Congo and four other dogs (Magnus was in the woods at the time of the incident and was left home) to an animal shelter, where Congo stayed until he was released pending the appeal. He was sent home two weeks ago after five months in lockup.

The James family argued that while in the shelter, Congo’s health was deteriorating and he was losing weight, even though Mrs. James faithfully brought him his favorite raw beef patties and chicken chewies.

“It’s horrendous what we’ve had to deal with,” Mr. James said as Congo bounded around their kitchen on Saturday, clenching a stuffed cow that was a homecoming gift. “But we are confident, going forward, that we are going to win this war.”

In State v. James, on Oct. 30, Judge Russell W. Annich Jr. of Municipal Court in Princeton Township declared Congo vicious and the attack unprovoked, a ruling that under the state “vicious dog” law requires the animal to be put down. The judge did note, however, that, “none of the dogs have any documented history of previous violent or disagreeable behavior.”

And an expert witness for the defense, an animal behaviorist, testified at the trial that Congo was simply doing his job, protecting his owner the way any reasonable canine would under the circumstances. The Jameses also submitted to the court dozens of letters from character witnesses and others who had come into contact with Congo during his 18-month life.

“I have had the pleasure of knowing Congo over the past two years and feel confident in stating that my relations with him have always been friendly and warm,” wrote one friend of the family.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled that Congo was not provoked, and that the attack — initially by Congo and then, the judge said, by the four other dogs — “continuing unabated for three minutes, was a response grossly disproportionate to the prevailing situation.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. why aren't you highlighting the most relevant passages, such as
"State Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Democrat from Union, has introduced legislation, which he calls Congo’s Law, that could spare the life of Congo and other dogs in similar situations by giving judges more discretion in meting out punishment."

which implies that the problem is at least in part that the law is written in such a way that judges can't take into account all circumstances

and

"The Jameses say that the landscapers arrived earlier than expected and that Congo, who is typically kept inside when workers are about, was provoked when Mr. Rivera became scared of the dog and grabbed Mrs. James. It is unclear what role the other dogs played. Mr. Rivera, who received a $250,000 settlement from the Jameses’ homeowners’ insurance company, argued that he was merely trying to get away from the dogs and was using Mrs. James as cover when he was mauled."

which states that even the victim agreed he "was using (the mom) as cover", which would be upsetting to many dogs who are in their own home and feeling protective

and

"And an expert witness for the defense, an animal behaviorist, testified at the trial that Congo was simply doing his job, protecting his owner the way any reasonable canine would under the circumstances."

This requires no further comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Did any of that negate the highlighted text? No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. The very first passage addresses it, and highlighting only
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:50 PM by spooky3
the part you want to bolster your own view is misleading.

You may want to read other articles about this case, to develop a more nuanced view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. How do you nuance "continuing unabated for three minutes"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. you weren't there - how do you know what
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:59 PM by spooky3
the owners did or could do and didn't do? How do you know whether the judge's determination was fair? Why aren't you considering, as several of us have posted, that the language of the law is the problem?

http://tinyurl.com/35kh26

" Although municipal Judge Russell Annich Jr. said at the Nov. 13 hearing that the case was neither criminal nor civil, Assemblyman Cohen said such cases “should have the same procedural safeguards” as criminal proceedings.

His bill reflects that belief with its inclusion of an amendment that according to a statement attached to the bill “raises the burden of proof for finding a dog to be vicious to beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In the same statement, Assemblyman Cohen says the legislation was “designated as Congo’s Law”, adding that “by many accounts” the now-famous German shepherd was instinctively “protecting its owner” when it attacked Mr. Rivera.

To that end, the bill would establish a definition for the term “provoked,” which is not included in the current statutes.

Under the new law, provocation would include “causing or inciting a dog to defend itself, its offspring, or its owner or a family member of its owner, by engaging in threatening actions or behavior,” such as “entering property without the presence, permission, or direction of the owner” or “gesticulating at, striking, grabbing, poking, prodding, or otherwise threatening the dog, its offspring, its owner, or a family member of its owner in such a way that reasonably would be expected to cause a dog to react in a protective manner.”"

And why didn't you read the other stories that pointed out that the animal control officer claimed ANOTHER DOG ate his report about what actually happened! Google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. The judge wasn't there either but SOMEHOW he was able to
make a decision based on findings made available to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. so you think all judges make great decisions
and should never be questioned? You think all laws are well written?

It's clear you have a black-and-white agenda here, so there's little reason to discuss it with you further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. There is no agenda and no I do not believe all laws are just.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
214. Did anyone else look askew at the "using Mrs. Jones" for
cover?? I mean if he thought the dog was dangerous by all means hide behind a woman. Geesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #214
303. he hid behind the owner, what's the big deal?
one would expect the owner to control her own dog, which she did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #303
392. He could've hid behind the male owner. Why her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #214
346. Yes...
that bothered me. And there's a certain amount of stupidity there. It occurred to the worker that he could grab her and use her as a shield, but it didn't occur to him that the dog would try to protect the woman?

If the worker had been WASP, this thread would be shorter by half.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #346
393. I think you might be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. Let's break it down so everyone can understand:
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 07:55 PM by Blue-Jay
Man got freaked out by big dog.

Man ran to dog's owner for protection, possibly grabbing her.

Dog saw a "threat" to owner and instinctively wanted to Protect Owner.

Scared Man unfortunately got his ass chewed up by Dog.

Random Asshole made racist remarks about Mauled Man.

Everybody loses.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. You nailed this one.
Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #48
58. Thanks. It seemed fairly plain to me.
I don't really understand how such an all-around unfortunate situation requires any debate. (Other than someone getting sick satisfaction from a dog attacking a brown guy, that is.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. Then there's also the homeowners' insurance angle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. What angle are you talking about?
I know that HO insurance differs from state to state with regards to what they consider "dangerous animals". I also know that some insurance companies will charge a large premium for certain breeds (in some areas, in some states) in order to minimize risk. I also know that insurance companies will deny liability payouts if an arbitrary dog breed (Pitbull, German Shepherd, Chow, etc..) is involved in a biting incident.

There are more insurance angles than you'll see in three years of post-graduate geometry. Which angle are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. If I could recommend 1 post here, it would be this one. Thanks. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. Thanks for summing this up
in a nutshell. Seems there are always some who never read the whole thing and then want to use the small part they read as "proof" of their own point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. It's weird, isn't it?
Too many people are quick to misread a news story. I can only suppose that that happens for one of two possible reasons:

1) They're looking to express outrage about a "pet" issue. (Facts be damned)
2) They want to feign being obtuse in order to start a discussion/start a fight. (this is called "trolling")

Sometimes a banana is nothing more than a yummy penis-shaped fruit. (see what I did there?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
139. Not only are you right, we seem to have a mini-convention here
or

maybe some people feel that having enough money to pay for a house and for some yard work to be completed means makes you an elite asshole by definition, and therefore your dog has no right to live.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
278. actually one guy ended up in the hospital, he's the biggest loser here
and he should not have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #34
110. Nouveau Riche Don't Have a Freaking Clue How They're Supposed to Behave When They Get Into the Club
Is basically what it comes down to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
60. Here is a link to a much more complete take on this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. I love that Congo has a lawyer. n/t
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 08:24 PM by gatorboy
No wait. I love this part better:

The owner testified she told the animal control officer she was pulled to the ground, which he put in his notes. Unfortunately, he reports, the notes from the owner and all defense witnesses were eaten by a stray dog he was transporting in the front seat of his truck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #64
93. *snicker* n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #64
338. Sorry yerhonor, the dog ate my homework
Sweet Jeebus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. Thanks spooky. This gives a lot more information. I can't believe
this judge and animal control officer. He literally said a dog ate my notes!!! Then when asked about the landscaper changing his story 5 times, he said that he had only changed it 3 times. Even the landscaper doesn't want the dog killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. agreed--it also addressed some other issues
that the OP story didn't, such as why didn't the judge throw the book at the other four dogs who allegedly were "unabatedly" attacking the landscaper? Hmm, maybe because three of them were Congo's PUPPIES, who may have been quite small--and Congo may have been trying to protect them as well?

I am not a dog owner either, but this story just did not meet the "smell test" from the start, and the more I read about it, the more smelly it became. I think it is really wrong to jump to conclusions about people's motivations without knowing the full story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #68
100. Dog ate his reports?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #100
117. If "my dog ate my homework" usually = I didn't actually DO any homework...
...then "a dog ate the notes that would have helped the Jameses" probably = _________________________________________.



:shrug:


I don't know why some of you leap to the assumption that this little detail makes the Jameses' case any more credible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #117
141. because if you would read the story, you would see that
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 04:10 PM by spooky3
the person who "lost his notes" was testifying AGAINST the Jameses and for the prosecution. If the notes that were taken at the scene refuted the James version of events, don't you think he would have managed to keep and present those notes?

If, as you say, "'my dog ate my homework' usually = I didn't actually DO any homework", it follows that if I have an ax to grind, I just may "lose" any evidence that weakens my ability to grind it. But then: Credibility and trustworthiness = 0. What's more believable if you are accused of shoplifting, for example - a police officer report written at the scene, or that police officer's recollections later of what he thinks happened, after he said through his own negligence the timely report is now missing?

Why did a trained animal control officer lose such critical information? What was another stray dog who allegedly "ate" the notes doing in the front seat of his vehicle--why wasn't he restrained or caged in the back? Why would the officer have put the notes where a dog could get them rather than in the glove box? What do the answers to all these questions tell us about the credibility, fairness, and competence of this officer?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #141
145. Exactly.
The dog ate his report? Why didn't he keep the reports where the dog can't get to them? Since he works with animals, one would think he should have known these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #141
155. the Jameses are claiming that the notes would have helped them...
Coulda, shoulda, woulda.


:eyes:


And I don't buy that. That's the point.


Besides, the police made their own report. A dog didn't eat it, and it didn't help the Jameses' case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #155
157. Give me a break.
Of course the report couldn't have helped the Jameses-after all the dog ate it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #157
165. they claim that IF the report had NOT been eaten, it WOULD have helped them...
:argh:

Of course the report couldn't have helped the Jameses-after all the dog ate it.



No.

The Jameses claim that IF the dog had NOT eaten the notes, THEN the notes WOULD have helped them in court.


Why do I have to keep explaining stuff like this to some of you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #165
168. You are acting as if Jameses are at fault for the report
being eaten by the dog. Ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #168
181. man, you REALLY need to read more carefully...
:wtf:


The Jameses are claiming that the one batch of notes that we'll never be able to read would have made the difference in their case. And I'm saying that I'm inclined to doubt that assertion.


Nowhere did I say that the Jameses had somehow caused the dog to eat the notes, or that they'd eaten the notes themselves and blamed the dog, or anything remotely like that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #181
382. I wonder if you would have been so understanding if a public
official made certain assertions about you or your pets, and then when asked for a report said that the dog ate it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #117
144. Maybe you should actually read the story.
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 05:40 PM by lizzy
The animal control was not testifying on Congo's behalf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
280. the stray dog was like the Mark Furman here, protecting the other dog (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
182. Yeah, the story takes on a really different angle with more
facts out, doesn't it? The dog should be left alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
70. Another story ..
Immigration debate ignited after gardener mauled by dog in N.J.

A dog scheduled to be put down after mauling a gardener from Honduras has ignited a debate over immigration and dog owners' rights in this university town.

The gardener, Giovanni Rivera, was attacked in June by a German shepherd named Congo and four other dogs at a Princeton home where he did landscaping. Charges were filed against the family who owned the dogs, and Rivera received an insurance settlement of $250,000.

But it's a judge's decision that the dog must be put down that has drawn criticism from some animal lovers and the dog's owners, who say Congo was protecting their property and family.

"It's just insanity what we're going through," Guy James said, sitting in his Princeton home with his wife, Elizabeth, as Congo and another German shepherd sat nearby. The James said the judge's decision to put Congo down has been "horrendous" for the couple and their four young children.

James contends the men showed up early when the dogs were eating, and disregarded his calls for them to stay in their vehicle. He said Congo attacked Rivera after the panicked gardener grabbed his wife from behind and pulled her down, causing her to scream.

Rivera's lawyer, Kevin S. Riechelson, said his client, who is still in New Jersey, did not want to speak about the incident because he was scared after the public outcry over the decision to put the dog down. But Riechelson and Kim Otis, the prosecutor who handled the case, described the attack as unprovoked, saying Rivera never pulled Elizabeth James down to the ground.

In addition, Riechelson said the men were told by their temp agency to show up for work early that day.

Rivera, who was hospitalized for five days, sustained "hundreds and hundreds of cuts," including a deep gash in his right thigh, according to Otis.

"They basically bit and clawed him for about three minutes," Riechelson said.

Public debate over the incident has even reached the office of Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who said last week that while he sympathizes with the dog, he's leaving the animal's fate up to the courts.

The governor's office has received more telephone calls, e-mails, letters and faxes about Congo than about any other issue since the governor took office. Almost everyone has demanded Congo be freed, a governor's spokesman said.

Much of the public discussion has centered on Rivera's immigration status. Neither Riechelson, the James family, their lawyer, or the prosecutor said they know whether Rivera is here legally, nor do they care, saying that it wasn't relevant to the case.

Otis described some of the comments directed at Rivera as "very disturbing" and questioned whether public opinion would be different if the victim had been a child or a non-immigrant.

That thought was echoed by some Hispanic immigrants in Princeton.

"Maybe they would have killed the dog already," said Oscar, a Guatemalan immigrant who didn't want to give his full name because he's in the country illegally. "This country values Americans."

The James' have appealed the judge's ruling that the dog be put down. Until the appeal is heard, Congo is permitted to stay with his family with some restrictions such as wearing a muzzle while he's outdoors.

James said he's rejected a plea deal that would allow Congo to escape euthanasia, provided the pet be labeled "potentially dangerous." He said his dog is not dangerous, and admitting so would be wrong.

The other dogs, who were not ordered to be put down, were deemed to have joined in the attack after Congo.

The public outcry over Congo harkens back to the case of Taro, an Akita that was sentenced to die for allegedly biting the lip of a 10-year-old girl in 1990. Taro's death sentence was eventually lifted by former Gov. Christie Whitman when she took office in 1994.

After the Congo incident, Democratic Assemblyman Neil Cohen from Union County proposed legislation that would make it more difficult to label a dog vicious and have it put down.


This story is not about a dog bite and it not just about 'Congo'. It is about a three minute dog mauling with FOUR dogs involved with the owners present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. These FOUR dogs would be Congo and his puppies.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 08:53 PM by lizzy
And Congo's wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #72
281. Congo's wife? We let dogs get married but not gay people?
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 02:36 PM by CreekDog
What a country!:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. It's also not about a dog being put down because he attacked
It's about an owner who is apparently out of touch with reality.

From the story flashl posted: "James said he's rejected a plea deal that would allow Congo to escape euthanasia, provided the pet be labeled "potentially dangerous." He said his dog is not dangerous, and admitting so would be wrong."

If the dog had attacked someone breaking into the house I'd agree with the owner, but I really have to wonder how well trained a dog is if the owner has to warn someone not to get out of their vehicle while the dog is loose.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. I would encourage you to read the HuffPo column I linked above
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:46 PM by spooky3
It is a much more complete story, and if you don't like it, you can find others on the internet that do not leave out as much pertinent info as the OP-linked story. You would find, for example:

The landscapers showed up much earlier than they were expected, so the dogs weren't where they would have been confined.
The victim did not do as he was told (stay in the vehicle until the dogs could be confined).
Both sides agreed that the victim grabbed the homeowner.
The landscapers hit the dog and its puppies with a rake.

As an owner of a house that has had a lot of work done by service people, I can tell you that some of them arrive whenever they feel like arriving and expect you to be ready for them, and that some of them are EXTREMELY disrespectful or lackadaisical about the owner's rules and of the owner's pets. I have only cats who are completely harmless, but some service people have let them outside, or have left doors open when I have repeatedly asked them to be careful not to let the cats out--and some of them even argue with me about whether this is a good rule (they always let their pets roam, etc., which is completely irrelevant since it is my house and my pets). All this would require is closing an outside door behind oneself. The worker means no harm (and in one case helped me look for the pet who got out) but the point is they do make mistakes that could put them at risk with dogs, and that it is not hard at all for me to believe the homeowners' side of this story. It is very unfortunate that the landscaper was harmed but it's not fair to punish the dog if the facts are as the HuffPo column reports.

And there are very good reasons why the homeowner or anyone else would reject a plea deal that do NOT involve being out of touch with reality, namely that there is a principle involved, that the accused is innocent, and that the penalty imposed by the plea deal is unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #79
90. sorry, but it's YOUR responsibility to prevent your animals from attacking workmen...
Even if the workers you hired show up earlier than you expected, there is still NO excuse for not having your animals under control. If your pets have the opportunity attack anyone you've hired, or any guest to your home, that is YOUR fault and no one else's.


Spare me the lame excuses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #90
99. Try reading the entire story--and if you were right, that under
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 09:11 AM by spooky3
these circumstances, the homeowners are negligent (not just liable), why in the world didn't the prosecutors send these people to the slammer or slap them with a big fine?

If you'll read the story (not just the sketchy one linked at the OP, but the column at HuffPo that I linked in my reply to the OP -- or do your own googling as several of us did here and read more of the facts), these "guests" were "invited" to stay in the truck until the homeowner finished his shower. They were not "invited" onto the property. Further, you are implying that under ANY circumstances, including a "guest" who suddenly pulls a gun on the homeowner, the homeowner is at fault. That is simply not true, legally or morally. When you become a homeowner and a pet owner, maybe you'll develop a different perspective.

So if you prefer not to spare US your black-and-white conclusions that are based on, shall we say, inadequate information, be our guest, but you're not convincing anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. Makes no difference. The workers were PERMITTED to come onto the property...
Once there, they were allegedly told by one of the Jameses that they had to stay in the truck until his lordship had taken a bath.

From the instant the wokrers were allowed onto the property, it was up to Mr. James to get his lazy ass in gear and get his animals under control.


As for why the Jameses haven't faced a stronger sanction, the sad fact is that owners of vicious dogs have rarely gotten charged with much -- even in situations far worse than this. That should change, in my opinion.


If you'll read the story (not just the sketchy one linked at the OP, but the column at HuffPo that I linked in my reply to the OP -- or do your own googling as several of us did here and read more of the facts), these "guests" were "invited" to stay in the truck until the homeowner finished his shower. They were not "invited" onto the property. Further, you are implying that under ANY circumstances, including a "guest" who suddenly pulls a gun on the homeowner, the homeowner is at fault. That is simply not true, legally or morally. When you become a homeowner and a pet owner, maybe you'll develop a different perspective.


LOL! I have both a pet and a house, thank you. I don't allow my cat to be so much as an annoyance to any human visitor, let alone a menace.

As for a hypothetical guest who pulls a gun on the person he's visiting, that's no guest. That's also not relevant to the situation we're discussing, where a homeowner created the hazard that injured a hired worker, and then tried to blame the victim for it.


So if you prefer not to spare US your black-and-white conclusions that are based on, shall we say, inadequate information, be our guest, but you're not convincing anyone.

Well, there are certain kinds of people that I have no hope of convincing. That's just the way it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. I am not sure as to what you mean by "permitted to come
onto a property." Anyone can drive up to the property, there is no law that prevent someone from driving up to the property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #107
118. believe it or not, you CAN order people to leave the driveway of your huge, gated estate...
:argh:


You don't even have to open the gate to them in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #118
171. Oh sorry. I don't have a huge gated estate, so how would I know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #118
185. It seems you are more upset that the people who own the dog
appear to be wealthy than anything else. True?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #185
195. gee -- backyard breeding, illegal-alien-employing scofflaws...
... who didn't even bother to license their pack, or vaccinate them, or keep them under control, and who got themselves into this jam by coming to court with a major 'tude and turning down the deal that would have spared their dog.


You're right. Silly me. What's not to love?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #195
249. That didn't answer my question. But I will say that someone
needs to make sure these dogs have what they are supposed to have, but I think destroying the dog is ridiculous. It is blaming the dog for protecting an owner. Secondly, has Mr. Jones brother been fined or put out of business for employing illegals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #185
206. EXACTLY!!! You pegged this poster perfectly! He's mentioned repeatedly
that they were RICH, WHITE people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #206
227. (I'm a she.)
And please, please tell us: WHAT exactly is so great about these arrogant, backyard-breeding, illegal-alien-employing scofflaws whose actions you've been trying to defend?


:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #227
251. Why do you call them "backyard" breeders? Were they
running a breeding operation? I read the two dogs had puppies. Is this a crime in that city? Should we label every single person who owns a dog or cat that has a litter "backyard" breeders, even if we find it irresponsible?

And I don't think we're "taking up" for the owners. We're taking up for an innocent dog who was only protecting his owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #251
292. well since Congo is only 18 months old
and he's a breeding stud and from what I gather the father of those puppies, that points to "backyard breeding" AKA uneducated breeders letting their dogs breed too early, in Congo's case ONE YEAR OLD. Which, incidentally, is a cause of behavioral problems in unneutered male dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #292
394. Well I'm not a dog breeder but I know someone who is and I
can assure you that 18 months is not too young. One year is not too young. I asked my vet when was the appropriate time to breed my schnauzer if I decided to and she said at one year, on the second heat.

So I wouldn't think that makes them a "backyard breeder". I used to breed and show persian cats, and we considered a backyard breeder people who continuously breed animals for profit and did not show them or know much about breed lines or pedigrees. I'd have to know a lot more about these people to call them backyard breeders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #206
250. Well, that is what I am getting here - it seems a lot of people
are madder that they are "rich" than what really happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #250
302. not from the posts that i've read
they are mad that the owners of the dogs did not control their pets and imply that the victim is responsible for being attacked.

that's damned good reason to be mad at the owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #106
109. WRONG. Unless you have a warrant, by law, I am allowed to tell you
not to come on my property...EVEN if I "invited" you over earlier! If I tell you not to come on my property and you still do, you are trespassing.

They drove up to the house an hour early and were told to wait in the truck because they were early and the owner was still in the shower and they were going to put the dogs up. Gee, I guess he was suppose to come out wet and naked to show them around the yard and help put the dogs up. Somehow that makes him an asshole! I've had someone from the phone or cable company show up at my house at a different time and told them to wait out front because I wasn't dressed. I guess I'm an asshole too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #109
186. Exactly. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #106
111. Permission to enter property is always conditional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. if you allow someone onto your property, you're liable if they come to harm...
...by being attacked by your dog -- whether you told them to sit outside in a truck or not. That's why the insurance company paid up.


If you can't reasonably assure the safety of your visitors, don't allow them to remain on your property at all until you've rectified the situation. It's as simple as that.


If you're expecting guests, it's a good idea to get your dogs under control well in advance. And if you insist on hiring "undocumented" workmen who don't speak your language well, then any resulting misunderstandings are just part and parcel of what YOU signed up for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #116
142. There are so many logical inconsistencies in your posts
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 05:21 PM by spooky3
and so little awareness of the facts that were actually reported in the stories linked, and so little willingness to listen to what others are politely trying to explain to you, that it is clear you have an agenda. I simply do not believe you are a homeowner who has always been 100% prepared for workers to arrive at your home regardless of whether they show up at the agreed upon hour.

You may also be liable if someone falls off a ladder in your home and hurts him/herself. Should we ban ladders? We're not discussing whether the homeowners should be liable. That was settled; the landscaper was paid. The issue is whether the dog should be put to death as required by New Jersey law and whether the law should change.

Hope you won't be too disappointed if the case is overturned by the state Supreme Court (did the state meets its burden to prove the attack was unprovoked?) and/or the change in the law that has been introduced by a Democrat is passed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #142
150. Don't waste your time with this one, spooky. He/She has a very big agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #150
203. Oh, so now I'm a He-She with a "big agenda"?
Whatever. I've been called worse.


:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #150
282. right, don't waste your time, northern spy is correct
and none of the arguments made here undermine his main points which are that the owners are responsible to keep their dogs from harming others who are guests and do not pose a legitimate threat to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #90
102. And it sounds like the owners accepted the responsibility.
The landscaper got paid by the homeowners insurance company.
I don't see as to why the dog should be killed for only doing what he was actually bred to do-thinking he is protecting his owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #79
184. Good analogy - Totally agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. "3 minute dog mauling" according to their attorney.
Imagine that. Drama brought forth by a lawyer. Oh my.

Dogs are pack animals. When you threaten alpha, as seems to be the case here, you may get the swarm.

I've got 10 pitbulls here at my rescue. Wanna guess what might happen to you if it appears you're physically threatening me? Wanna guess how long it'd take me to regain control of that?

As unfortunate as it is, Congo was doing a dog's job in this case. As unfortunate as it is for Mr. Rivera, Congo did it well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Drama that acutalized into
five days in the hospital and "hundreds and hundreds of cuts".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Don't know much about dogs, do you?
Nor liability, I'd guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. Quite a bit that's why this story is of interest to me.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 09:44 PM by flashl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Indeed.
Then your post:
"This story is not about a dog bite and it not just about 'Congo'. It is about a three minute dog mauling with FOUR dogs involved with the owners present."

seems a little out of place. Maybe you can explain it better, at length.

Share your vast expertise in regards to this "three minute dog mauling with FOUR dogs...with the owners present"

I look forward to your educated response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Explain 'out of place'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Might just be my error
but your post, coupled with your OP, seems to place the blame on the dogs, regardless. With your expertise, I'd expect explanation of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. I am not blaming the dog. I am questioning what happen for 3 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Yeah, okay.
If you say so. Benefit of the doubt, and all.

What do YOU think happened? Speculate, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #84
113. Based on the victim's relatively few injuries, I would say, "not much."
The idea that this guy was just lying on the ground while one or more large Shepherds were trying to kill him and the owner did nothing is BS. Whatever happened, it wasn't anywhere near that severe.

If it was, his injuries would be far worse. You would see multiple very deep bite wounds, shredded flesh, and probably broken bones and mangled tissue in the hands and wrists from defensive wounds resulting from protecting the throat.

Three minutes is an awfully long time for a big dog to continue biting you, let alone more than one big dog. I frankly doubt that anyone would SURVIVE an attack like the judge and you seem to think occured here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #113
130. The extent of Mr. Rivera's
injuries is communicated in his five-day hospital stay. I have seen motorcycle accident victims with wound care needs sent home in less time or received medical care on an outpatient basis. Perhaps there are other explanations?

If the dogs were in a frenzy while both the landscaper and the wife were on the ground, why do you think the wife did not receive wounds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #130
147. Well, the dog's goal would be to protect the owner.
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 06:26 PM by lizzy
Biting the owner would kind of defeat that purpose, wouldn't it? Do you think the dog is stupid? By the way, the OP article says Mr. Rivera received 65 rabies shots. For the life of me, I can't understand as to why someone would get 65 rabies shots? Seems like way too many shots. Especially considering the dogs actually did not have rabies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. Dog fenzy is dog fenzy
In my locale, owners of rottweilers, two males and one female, were mauled when the males engaged in a fight. The first reaction from the community was to put the dogs down. Through efforts of locals the couple was given assistance to keep their dogs. Ownership has no role in a fenzy.

Do you think Mr. Rivera prescribed the 65 shots for himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #148
156. I don't know who prescribed 65 shots to Mr. Rivera.
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 01:28 AM by lizzy
I am wondering if the "65 shots" is a typo in the article.
It seems like way too many shots based on what I have read about rabies treatment, and those dogs didn't even have rabies.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/r/rabies/treatments.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #156
159. rabies prophylaxis may require dividing up the immunoglobulin dose...
... and injecting a portion of it in the vicinity of each wound. Mr. Rivera had a large number of wounds.

The actual rabies vaccination consists of several shots, only one of which is administered on the day treatment commences. The others are administered in a series, one at a time in the weeks following.


The rabies shots themselves are no big deal. They're just like any vaccination.

But the immunoglobulin shots are a different story. Depending on how the doctor decides to proceed, these may add up to a very large number of injections, and they give them to you all at once -- one right after the other.


So whether 65 is a typo or not, Mr. Rivera may indeed have required a LOT of shots after he was attacked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #159
169. I was always of the opinion that when someone is bitten,
the animal in questions should be quarantined to determine if it stays alive and healthy (in which case it obviously doesn't have rabies). These dogs did not have rabies. Was it really necessary to give this man rabies vaccinations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #169
173. well, modern medicine is of the opinion that bites to head require prompt prophylaxis...
The rabies virus spreads along nerve fibres at rates up to 20mm per day.

20mm = 2cm = ~4/5'' = 8 inches in 10 days = you're toast, if the bite was close to your brain.


The object is to keep the virus from reaching the central nervous system. The closer the wound is to the CNS, the less time you can wait before it's too late.


Mr. Rivera appears to have at least one head wound visible in the picture shown in the OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #147
345. Sweet jeebus
That article is bullshit. I thought the whole "65 shots in the stomach" thing died out years ago!

I'm a vet tech, I've been bitten, I've been offered the post-exposure shot series (I declined). I am now vaccinated, so the PEP for me would be 2 shots.

PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) for non-immunized individuals is a series of 6 total doses. Because this is a grown man, each dose could be administered in 1-2 shots.

As per the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/postexposure.html

Postexposure Prophylaxis for Non-immunized Individuals
Treatment Regimen
Wound cleansing All postexposure prophylaxis should begin with immediate thorough cleansing of all wounds with soap and water. If available, a virucidal agent such as povidine-iodine solution should be used to irrigate the wounds.

RIG (rabies immunoglobulin) If possible, the full dose should be infiltrated around any wound(s) and any remaining volume should be administered IM at an anatomical site distant from vaccine administration. Also, RIG should not be administered in the same syringe as vaccine. Because RIG might partially suppress active production of antibody, no more than the recommended dose should be given.

Vaccine HDCV or PCECV 1.0 mL, IM (deltoid area †), one each on days 0 , 3, 7, 14, and 28.

6 shots total, over the course of 28 days. And I GUARANTEE that any hospital anywhere near Princeton would adhere to this and also have the needed items close at hand, usually via the health dept. If they were out, supplies could be found just about everywhere else. The guys lawyer was full of complete and utter bullshit with that statement, and the NYT just shows yet again how shoddy and irresponsible their reporting can be. Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #345
348. you're forgetting that the immunoglobulin dose CAN be a large number of injections...
Protocol is to inject a portion of the immunoglobulin directly into the location of the bite.


And if you have dozens of bites...?



I'll let you do the math.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #348
357. Seriously,
You have no idea what you are talking about. There is a set max amount of the RIG can be given, one dose. There's only so many injections of it that can be given with that volume, and NOTHING approaching 65 fucking injections. A 150lb man would get a total of 9.1ml. Up to 30ml volume can be safely injected into the gluteus. Even in the old interperitoneal days the total number of injections was 21-30 injections.

I worked directly with purposely infected rabies animals for years, I DO know what I am talking about with this one, unlike you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #357
379. Oh, for fux sake! You can divide the total immunoglobulin dose...
... into more than one injection. It can be diluted with saline if the appropriate dose out of the vial won't amount to enough volume for the required number of injections.


If you don't believe me, since I supposedly "have no idea what (I'm) talking about", ask the World Health Organization:


The full dose of rabies immunoglobulin, or as much as is anatomically feasible, should be administered into and around the wound site. Any remainder should be injected intramuscularly at a site distant from the vaccine administrative site.

If the dose of rabies immunoglobulin is too small to infiltrate all wounds, (as might be the case in a severely bitten child) the correct dosage of rabies immunoglobulin can be diluted in physiological buffered saline to insure more wound coverage.



You got that?




I worked directly with purposely infected rabies animals for years, I DO know what I am talking about with this one, unlike you.


Yes, stick to animals -- please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #379
381. WHO "As with a child" - This is a 45 year old man, big difference
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 08:09 AM by dropkickpa
And I worked in human biomedical research. I dealt with enough fucking idiot phd's who got exposed in the lab and/or animal facility to be very fucking well aquainted PEP protocol, and I am required to be well aquanted with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #381
386. a "severely-bitten child" was offered as an EXAMPLE of a case where the dose...
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 04:59 PM by NorthernSpy
... of immunoglobulin would need to be stretched with saline in order for there to be enough separate injections to treat EACH WOUND.


NOWHERE did it say that this was a pediatric-only protocol, or anything of the sort.


The POINT is that the immunoglobulin dose is figured according to the patient's weight. A person of low body weight -- such as a child -- who has a large number of wounds will almost certainly need to have the immunoglobulin dose diluted with saline so that there will be enough VOLUME to provide at least one injection per wound.


This may have been the case with Mr. Rivera, whose weight may not have allowed for an immunoglobulin dose of sufficient undiluted volume to allow instillation in all of his many wounds.


Unless full-body maulings -- with the victim incurring dozens of bites -- are commonplace in your lab, then your own experiences probably aren't as relevant as you think they are.



Do you understand that now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #357
383. Exactly. I had to have rabies shots as a child, after the dog bit me.
After that dog bit me, the owners put it down rather than had it quarantined or examined for rabies, so that's why I had to have shots. Even back then I don't think people were given 65 shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #383
387. number of immunoglobulin shots depends on number of bites...
From your brief description of the incident, I'm sensing that your experience was probably NOT comparable to what happened to Mr. Rivera.

How many bites did you have? Dozens? Was it a full-body mauling?

Or did you just a have a wound or two?

And if the incident occurred before rabies immunoglobulin became available, then you wouldn't have the immunoglobulin shots at all, but rather just the rabies shots alone.



You see, the rabies vaccine and the immunoglobulin dose are not the same thing.

The rabies vaccinations are just a series of five shots. One the first day of therapy, and the others at various intervals over the next few weeks.


The immunoglobulin dose MAY BE GIVEN AS A LARGE NUMBER OF INJECTIONS. It depends on how many bites you have. The entire immunoglobulin dose is administered on the day treatment commences.


Mr. Rivera had dozens of wounds. Each wound is supposed to be injected with a portion of the immunoglobulin. That is the current treatment protocol.


Remember: the immunoglobulin injections are NOT THE SAME THING AS THE RABIES VACCINATIONS. Unless you have a history of pre-exposure vaccination for rabies, or if the bite occurred more than seven days before starting treatment, then you need immunoglobulin IN ADDITION TO vaccine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #345
395. I thought that was the case and wanted to say something
after I read the 65 shot thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #395
400. I explained it for Lizzy, and I'll explain it for you...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2383564&mesg_id=2418900


The rabies vaccine is given in a series of five ordinary shots in the deltoid. But the rabies immunoglobulin dose (which is a different treatment that is administered in addition to the vaccine) is supposed to be injected in each wound.

If the appropriate dose of immunoglobulin doesn't amount to enough volume straight out of the vial to allow for an injection in each wound, it can be diluted with saline so that there will be enough to inject in each and every wound.



Bottom line: if you've got a lot of wounds, you get a lot of shots.


Mr. Rivera had a lot of wounds. So he needed a lot of shots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Dogs that are not trained attack dogs are difficult to call off on command.
Edited on Sat Dec-01-07 10:09 PM by BadgerLaw2010
If the house pet, particularly a breed with defensive genes such as a Shepherd, unloads on someone who is threatening "master", they can be very difficult to disengage. Shepherds will lay down their life for their master, and don't have much fear. And any dog of decent size can do quite a bit of damage in a hurry.

If this guy was mercilessly attacked by four large, dedicated dogs as you seem to suggest, he'd resemble pot roast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Pot roast?
You make a very good point here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. This is what I suspected happened. The owners did not have voice command control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. the homeowners had two adult mates and their puppies
the fact that the judge did not throw the book at the other animals suggests to me that the mother and the puppies did not "mercilessly attack" the victim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. gee, and I thought backyard breeders were a BAD thing...
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 08:18 AM by NorthernSpy
The victim had to have rabies shots. Not only did the owners not control their dogs, apparently they didn't vaccinate them either. And now they're smearing the guy who got mauled, and pretending not to notice while their supporters whip up a racist campaign against the victim.


Amazing the sympathy these assholes are getting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. The dog had puppies. It's the puppies that haven't completed
their rabies vaccinations yet. Animals are supposed to get their rabies vaccinations at a certain age, and the puppies haven't gotten their rabies vaccinations yet. And I have no clue as to WTF the dog owners could do if some of their supporters are racist. These racist supporters could post on boards, or write letters just like you can post-is anyone telling you what to post?
The owners can't control what other people are doing out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #97
133. the puppies SHOULD have had a rabies shot at 4 months of age...
At the time of the attack, they were six months old, and still unvaccinated. All of the dogs were unlicensed, and one of them didn't participate in the attack because it had been wandering off the property at the time.


Face it: the Jameses are scofflaws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #94
187. Not necessarily true at all. Rabies shots cannot be given to
puppies (or kittens) until they are a certain age. I believe it is 16 weeks. AT least that is what my vet requires. So the puppies might not have been old enough. Has nothing to do with "negligence".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #187
199. the puppies were six months old at the time of the attack...
So yeah, they were old enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #199
252. Just barely. I got my dog's at six months as well. She had
an ear infection at 16-18 weeks and was scheduled for a spay and tooth pull, and the vet wanted her to wait for that time for the rabies shot. I guess that makes me horrible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #187
284. the Jameses are terrible dog owners, irresponsible, not in control
and not following the laws that require licensing and vaccination.

and now their dogs have attacked a guest on their property which resulted in a 5-day hospital stay.

the Jameses' have no credibility in this one unless you choose to grant it to them --though I don't know why you would.

if the gardener changed his story, he still has his 5-day hospital stay and that horrendous photo which is all the evidence I need.

you should not get mauled for just being on somebody's property and being so scared of a dog that you get behind the owner to protect yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #284
317. The puppies were at an age that does not require licensing/rabies shots by law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #317
330. Princeton requires licensing of every dog
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 12:42 PM by CreekDog
within 10 days of acquiring said dog.

inoculation is required by 6 months.

http://www.codedsystems.com/princeton_borough.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #284
360. I disagree. He was told to stay in the truck, ergo, he was not
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 10:27 PM by JeanGrey
invited. He grabbed the owner. He changed his story 3 times, why? I also read that rakes were used on the puppies. I'm sorry. I'm on the dog's side. He got 250 grand - I didn't read anything that said he had permanent damage. I think the dog should be spared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #75
283. and not legal, but with that attitude, maybe you'll end with an innocent victim
killed, if your dogs attack somebody without threatening you.

remember those dogs in San Francisco that killed the lady going to her apartment? those owners said the dogs were threatened by the now deceased.

owners have all responsibility for the actions of their dogs, these owners were negligent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #70
183. What was a "temporary agency" doing employing an illegal,
and have they been investigated and I hope, shut down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #183
201. Hell, ask Mr. James! His BROTHER owns the company...
:rofl:


I'd imagine that he doesn't share your interest in seeing any of this investigated and shut down, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #201
361. I could care less!!! His brother's entire AGENCY should be
investigated, fined, and shut down if necessary. If we did more of this, our illegal problem would be reduced VASTLY. Also the guy with the dogs should be fined for working an illegal if it can proven he knew it, which probably wouldn't be so hard.

Just don't take it out on the dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-01-07 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
73. This is NOT the whole story!!
The dog attacked this guy after the guy threw the woman, the dog's owner to the ground. The guy was told not to come until a certain time and he came earlier and when the dog started barking he hit him with a metal rake. The owner told him to stop and he grabbed her and put himself behind her and pulled her to the ground. The dog thought the owner was being attacked. The landscaper was told to wait so they could confine the dogs before he exited his truck and he got out anyway. Rather that euthanize the dog, the owners are only asking for an evaluation of the dog so they can see that the dog is not vicious. Fair request I would say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #73
92. no, that's the OWNERS' tale, and we already know how irresponsible they are...
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 08:11 AM by NorthernSpy
You know why that man had to have all those rabies shots? That's necessary when there's no record of the attacking dog having been properly vaccinated.


Bottom line: it's YOUR responsibility to keep your animals under control at all times. Even if your workers or guests mistakenly arrive early, YOU are responsible for their safety. No excuses.


The Jameses were offered a deal: accept a finding of "potentially dangerous" for Congo, and take measures to protect the public from him. They refused, the court heard the whole case, and as a result the dog was declared vicious and ordered destroyed.

They were offered a chance to accept responsibility, they refused, and the result is entirely their own fault. Tough shit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. Irresponsible? At what age are dogs supposed to be
vaccinated for rabies? The dog had four puppies. Puppies were the ones who haven't completed their rabies. Not the mother and father dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #98
103. let's see... the unvaxed backyard-bred pups were allowed to roam a 10 acre property...
... where they were at risk for exposure to rabies -- and if exposed, potentially spreading the disease to humans.


Gee, what irresponsibility?


:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:56 AM
Original message
dupe
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 09:57 AM by lizzy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Well, guess what? All puppies are born
un-vaccinated. Are you proposing to vaccinate puppies at the moment they are born, or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #104
134. the puppies were 6 months old -- 2 months past due for their rabies shot...
Sorry, but your sympathy for the Jameses is misplaced. You've jumped in the wrong side of this -- as I suspect you're now realizing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. You have no clue as to what I am realizing or not.
And I don't agree with the decision to put this dog down, for only doing what the dog was bred to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #134
288. go look at the Duke Lacrosse player threads
and you might not feel so charitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. It's obvious you have never owned a puppy or you were very irresponsible
because a puppy has A SERIES OF VACCINATIONS just like a child does!

How the hell do you know they were allowed to roam a 10 acre property? Could you show me where any source says they were? They were probably let out to run around the immediate area and to start to house break them.

Jesus...where the hell did it say these people are "backyard breeders"? You are just starting to make things up now because you didn't bother to check the facts before you posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #108
114. holy mutha of Dog...
:banghead:


It's obvious you have never owned a puppy or you were very irresponsible because a puppy has A SERIES OF VACCINATIONS just like a child does!


Yes. Puppies need a series of vaccinations. No shit.


How the hell do you know they were allowed to roam a 10 acre property? Could you show me where any source says they were? They were probably let out to run around the immediate area and to start to house break them.


Because. They. Were. Outside. On. The. Grounds. Uncontrolled. When. The. Attack. Occurred.


Jesus...where the hell did it say these people are "backyard breeders"? You are just starting to make things up now because you didn't bother to check the facts before you posted.


Because. They. Had. A. Mating. Pair. Of. Dogs. And. The. Resulting. Puppies. In. Their. Backyard.



You really needed me to spell all that out for you? Really?


?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #114
149. Are you joking?
That's REALLY your response?

:rofl:

I'll let anyone reading judge that pile of :freak: post for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #149
151. look, I don't think I can make it any simpler for you...
You asked me how I could possibly have picked up on the basic facts of the case, so I spelled them out for you. The property is ten acres; the pups were roaming loose on the estate (and in fact, one of the dogs was found wandering off the property the morning of the attack); and the Jameses quite literally are backyard breeders by virtue of having a breeding pair of dogs and a backyard rapidly filling up with the resulting doglets.


And you still don't seem to be absorbing any of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #92
101. Why would I not believe the owners' story when their story has been
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 09:14 AM by peacebaby3
consistent and the landscaper has changed his story 3 times? He's admitted that he grabbed the woman in at least one of his versions. The owners told the animal control officer that the landscaper grabbed the woman from behind and they both fell to the ground and the dog thought she was being attacked. They had numerous witnesses such as mailmen/mailwomen and delivery persons testify that they have been in the yard and the dog has been friendly and docile. The dog has no history of aggression and was shown in a news video playing and licking all over young children.

If you had taken the time to read up about this case from sources listed here, you would know the reason he had to have the rabies shots is because the dog's 3 puppies were in the yard and they went over to where the attack was happening. Nobody is sure if they participated since they were puppies and one of them was hit with a rake and had to have treatment for the injuries, but if you have ever owned a puppy, you know they go through a series of shots over the 1st year or so of their life and the puppies had not had their rabies shot yet.

This was not a dog that normally attacked. I have very friendly, 3lb. chihuahuas, but if you came in my yard, running toward me, grabbed me and we fell to the ground, they will come after you, even at 3lbs. I'm their leader and they would absolutely think you were attacking me as any dog would. In fact, if my husband saw you and didn't know exactly what was going on, he would come after you in that situation regardless of whether you were supposed to be there or not.

The owner's did take responsibility. Their insurance settled with the man (they didn't even try to go to court) for $250,000.00. They are just trying to save their pet dog.

Just because a few racist assholes try to make this a story about illegal immigrants doesn't make it so. Why would you let them control the conversation about this case? Who cares if it's on Stormfront (as you mentioned in another post)? Why would you even bother to go over there and give any of your time to those few hundred racist losers? If you are letting them make this about illegal immigration, you are falling right into their hateful trap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #101
143. well-said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #92
188. The puppies weren't vacinnated. They were probably NOT
old enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #188
198. We've been over this. The puppies were six months old at the time of the attack...
First rabies shot is supposed to come at around four months, or as early as three months if there's a significant potential for exposure. Given that the Jameses allowed the puppies to roam outside on their 10 acre property, hell yeah there was an exposure risk.


But the Jameses dropped the ball on that, just like they didn't bother to buy the required licenses for ANY of their dogs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #198
211. Earliest I do mine are 16 weeks, and if I wait for a spay/neuter at
the same time, it is usually around six months, and my vet has no problem with it. Obviously the dogs don't have rabies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #73
112. According to the judge in the case, the attack was unprovoked
Are you trying to say that he didn't take all of the evidence and rule appropriately?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. Yes and the way the law is written it makes it more difficult for the judge to
rule in favor of the owners because of the standards for what constitutes a vicious dog. A Democratic state congressman has introduced a bill to try to change the law because it doesn't take any mitigating circumstances under consideration which in most law is always considered regarding sentencing or penalty. Plus, you have a biased animal control officer who ironically lost ALL of his notes from DEFENSE witnesses because they were eaten by a dog!

Read some of the materials available in this thread and not just the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. I'm sorry, but I'm in the camp that once an animal attacks a person
it is never to be trusted again. In situations like this people come first, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. thank you for that concise bit of moral clarity...
People who insist on owning potentially dangerous dogs must keep them under control -- or else.


We can promote and provide for animal welfare. But where there's a conflict between humans and animals in a human settlement, the needs, interests, and safety of humans must take precedence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. Sure -- if the attacked was unprovoked
This attack was very much provoked. I'd expect my dog to react the same way, and he's not a "protective" breed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. the court found no evidence that the victim had provoked the dog...
And the judge ruled that the attack on Mr. Rivera was unprovoked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Thats bullshit
Do you think a dog (especailly a proctective breed) is going to tell the difference between an attack or just some stranger grabbing his owner to the ground while she screams because he's scared and freaked out? Of course its not, its going to protect its owner by chewing up that dudes ass.

Have you even read the articles and take in every little detail of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. maybe YOU should read the articles...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #132
138. The dogs now have been put into an obedience school, from
what I have read. The liability insurance paid the victim.
It sounds like the owners are trying to be responsible dog owners, since the dogs are in obedience school.
Maybe they weren't perfect dog owners-thus accepting the liability and paying the victim. I don't see as to why the dog has to be punished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #138
152. lizzy, it's not fair to be logical. Only righteous outrage and vindictiveness
are allowed in this situation. Kill, Kill, Kill!!! That's the answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #152
158. when rich whites value dogs over their impoverished brown wage slaves...
... then vindictiveness is an appropriate response.


Read the comments on this page.


Those people really DO value the dog over the mauled human being. And they're willing to overlook the habitual lawbreaking and irresponsibility of dog's assholish owners merely because they identify with them.


They need to be taught a lesson.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #158
164. Your agenda is getting clearer and clearer, to spread more hate.
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 02:26 AM by CRF450
Nothing more to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #164
166. LOL! Arguing that Hispanics are worth more than dogs = "spreading more hate"?
:eyes:


Nothing more to say.


And you don't need to say anything else. It's already very, very clear where you're coming from.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #158
170. Do you think the dog cared that a person he bit was hispanic?
Or was he simply thinking he is protecting his owner. WTF does the dog have to do with racism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #170
174. The dog doesn't care. But it's supporters sure as hell do...
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 06:01 AM by NorthernSpy
http://www.itchmo.com/judge-upholds-ruling-for-congo-the-dog-to-be-put-down-3835


That's not a political site, by the way. It's a mainstream site devoted to pets. And yet those dozens of posts commenting on this story would fit in perfectly well at Stormfront.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #138
162. yeah, 'cause all their dogs have been declared potentially dangerous...
Now they've put their dogs in obedience school. Now they're "trying to be responsible".


Yes, now that a worker has been mauled, and now that they've lost in court after arrogantly turning down a deal that would have spared their dog, and now that all their dogs have been declared potentially dangerous -- now they're "trying to be responsible". Because the authorities finally forced them to.



Figures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #132
146. I need a user account for that one.
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 06:12 PM by CRF450
But answer this. Do you think a protective dog will see a difference between an actually attack, or just a stranger grabbing the dog's owner because he's freaked out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #146
153. okay, here's a link to Google's cache of that page...
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 01:04 AM by NorthernSpy
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:WBfO81LRyaEJ:packetonline.com/articles/2007/11/16/the_princeton_packet/news/doc473dbbd03cd0c627045081.txt+james+congo+10-acre+rivera&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us


But answer this. Do you think a protective dog will see a difference between an actually attack, or just a stranger grabbing the dog's owner because he's freaked out?


The fact that the worker was that terrified indicates that the dog was already behaving aggressively. That's the owners' fault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. Are you sure about that?
I'v seen people just freak out just from seing a big dog close to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #132
212. I'm sorry, but I agree. If someone who was a stranger grabbed
me and fell to the ground with me I dare say my minature schnauzer would bite them and hard, and she's a small dog.

In fact the people down the street own a pit bull who they allow to roam around in their yard unleashed. (THAT is stupid). They don't have ten acres. When I walked by with my little dog the pit charged us and she threw herself inbetween me and the dog. Luckily the owner was able to get to the pit before it got to us.

THAT is a dangerous dog.

I'd have to see this man's property, any signs he had up, to make a better judgement. I still feel the dog was only protecting his owner on his property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #112
190. YES. The judge obviously made a mistake.
Of course, we know they never do! ROTFLMAO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
105. The victim bears no ill will towards the dog
And the dog certainly bears no ill will, but was acting on instinct. Those who make inhumane comments about a human being who suffered great injury because he happens to be an immigrant are the bearers of ill will, and they are disgusting.

I have been attacked by dogs on two occasions. Once the dog that bit me was put down, and that just made it worse for me. It was not what I wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
128. Oh, look: one of the dogs was wandering OFF the property that morning...
ALL of the dogs were unlicensed, and some of them were unvaccinated:


Along with labeling Congo “vicious” — which mandates euthanization, pending the appeal — Judge Annich also labeled four of the family’s other dogs — Lucia, Congo’s mate, and their offspring, Bear, Shadow and Hunter — as “potentially dangerous,” which results in increased an annual licensing fee of $700 for each dog, and other requirements about how the dogs are kept.

Another dog, Magnus, was not involved in the attack because he had strayed from the property that morning, but was unlicensed, as were the other five dogs.
Because all of the dogs were unlicensed, and the younger dogs were unvaccinated, the judge levied fines of $300 and $150, respectively, plus court costs.


http://packetonline.com/articles/2007/11/16/the_princeton_packet/news/doc473dbbd03cd0c627045081.txt



Face it: from hiring illegal labor to letting their dogs roam wild, the Jameses are simply arrogant scofflaws who think the rules don't apply to them. Their own irresponsible behavior caused this incident, and now they want to blame the consequences on everyone but themselves. I have NO sympathy for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #128
136. Oh please. The puppies have been now put into an obedience
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 03:20 PM by lizzy
school. The owners insurance accepted liability and paid the victim.
WTF is the dog have to be killed? If the owners didn't do all they could have done in terms of being responsible owners of the dogs, it sounds like they are trying to get it done. As for the dog, the court clearly ruled that the attack was un-provoked based from a person's point of view, and not the dog's point of view. The dog sees a strange person on the property. Since the landscaper allegedly was using the owner as a cover, the dog had no idea the landscaper meant no harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #136
270. are you saying that what happened to the landscaper was justified?
it's not justified. the landscaper was not a threat.

the penalty for coming onto somebody's property where you have business is not death or serious injury which is what happened to the landscaper.

dog owners, and i have been one, need to know that if they don't control their dog and prevent it from attacking a person whom the owner does not legimitely consider a threat, that owner is risking the life of their dog.

yes, the owner is responsible for whatever happens to the dog in this case, absolutely. it's not the dog's fault --he is not being "punished" so to speak, legally, he is being put down because his owners cannot control him and that makes the dog a danger to society.

showing up early and missing a direction is not justification for getting mauled --it don't work that way.

i find it ironic that you defend the dog in this case, you act like the landscaper was culpable, and yet, not long ago, you defended the wrongful accusations of the Duke LaCrosse accuser and smeared the defendants who were declared innocent.

i don't know what's with your values system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
131. "Mr. James said he refuses to have his dogs labeled in any way, under any circumstances."
From Princeton's local newspaper:


Asked why he refused a plea deal initially offered by Mr. Otis to have Congo deemed “potentially dangerous” and thus avoid euthanization, Mr. James said he refuses to have his dogs labeled in any way, under any circumstances.

”We’re just not going to do that,” he said. “By no means are these dogs dangerous.”


http://packetonline.com/articles/2007/11/16/the_princeton_packet/news/doc473dbbd03cd0c627045081.txt


Yeah, nice attitude. This from a guy who didn't bother to get the required licenses for ANY of his dogs, allowed them to breed, and left most of them unvaccinated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. Oh gee. So I guess the dog who only tried to protect his family
has to pay.
WTF did the dog do wrong? He can't go and get himself licensed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
140. A few years ago I was having an "end of semester" party and the various dogs were guests.
One guest's friend who saw him on the porch came by uninvited and drunk. I informed him that there were young children at the event and alcohol free until after dark. He apologized, then disappeared for an hour or so and came back even drunker. I asked him to leave. He refused and shoved me down to the ground, slamming me against a wall when I got back up again. My Doberman had him pinned to the floor in about 30 secs. and then three or four other dogs joined in the melee. Phil, my dog, did not break his skin. I got up, we got the dogs off of the drunk and he ran as fast as he could. About a year later, a friend of my son was getting out of the Army and dropped by to tell us that he was going to school at Alabama and starting in a few months. I was changing a CD for the boys and he suddenly leapt up and grabbed me in a bear hug from behind. Once again Phil went off on him. Why? Touching me in what a dog bred for protection of his "crew" felt was threatening.
Once again no skin broken, but the lad got the message: don't touch someone who has a Doberman that is a "velcro dog" and thinks his mission in life is to protect his people.

Dogs often will join in when one begins to attack. Don't know why, but that is canid behaviour. The pity of the case is that the racist xenophobes have spun this out of control. A man was attacked by at least one dog and after he grabbed their dogs' pack leader. It is a pity that Mr. Rivera went to the house before the dogs were put inside and also that the homeowners never introduced him and the dogs to each other, so that his appearance was not extraordinary.

I hope that the dog is not put down. There is no need for that. Mr. Rivera has received monetary damages for his wounds. He feel no vindictive feelings towards the dogs, I do not see where justice will be served by putting down a dog which was doing what a dog is bred to do.

The dog is being used as a pawn, purely and simply. A pawn for xenophobia and also for those who are intent upon disproving xenophobic attitudes in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sandaasu Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
167. The racism sucks, yeah, but the dog shouldn't be harmed.
As others here are saying, he has just doing what he thought was right, to protect his family. A dog like this isn't prone to violence or anything, he's just being protective, which is a reason to have a dog around in the first place. If it had been someone there to harm Elizabeth in some way, the dog would be seen as a hero, for doing the exact same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
172. If you grab the dog's owner as he apparently did
you should expect to the possibility of attack. The dog is unaware of Mr. Rivera's ethnic background or home country. He saw someone grab his owner, misinterpreted the action and reacted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #172
177. Why do you think Mr. Rivera ran behind Mrs. James in the first place?
Gee whiz... Could it be because the dog was already advancing on him? Could it be that the judge, unlike some people here, actually considered basic questions like that before ruling the dog vicious?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #177
189. Or could it be that because the dog was barking and he hit it with a steel rake?
If someone hit me with a rake I would bite them too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #189
194. no, that's just the Jameses' tale...
According to Animal Control, the workers used their rakes to hold off the pack (which had by this time run away from Mrs. James and were swarming the workers). That's when Mrs. James started screaming her entitled little head off, and things went downhill from there.

Thing is, you really DON'T have to stand there like dummy while being menaced by a dog. You're allowed to defend yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #194
196. The first story said he hit the dogs first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #196
200. again, that's the Jameses' tale...
Those people! They travel all the way from Mexico Honduras just for the chance to hit our good, 'Murrican dogs with rakes!

Not just any rakes -- STEEL rakes!


:eyes:


Yeah -- even though they're working for the brother of the dog owner, and they know that they risk losing their jobs and wages without recourse if they piss anyone off.



Sheesh. Why anybody finds the James gang remotely credible at this point, I have no idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #200
218. Your opinion on this is disgusting and bigotted.
:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #218
223. Yup! I'm bigoted against irresponsible, illegal-alien-employing scofflaws...
I'm also bigoted against people who think that dogs are worth more than Hispanic laborers, illegal or no.


Yes, I proudly plead guilty to those two bigotries.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #194
215. What is it with "entitled". I've noticed that since coming to this
board, when something happens and a person happens to be not poor, all of sudden they are open for derision and scorn. Is this supposed to be the "progressive" way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #215
226. are you saying that you LIKE the Jameses' attitude?
Tell me: which part of their arrogant, entitled attitude do you like best?

The part that tells them that they can hire illegal aliens if they please?

The part that makes them think that the dog licensing and vaccination laws don't apply to them?

The part that causes them to throw an offered deal that would have spared their dog back in the court's face, and THEN whine and cry that they're being picked on when they lose at the proceeding THEY insisted on having?


Really: what's so great about these twits?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #226
254. Why do you call them "entitled" and what part about their
trying to save their dog's life would be so? I have noticed this a lot since coming here. Would you feel the same if the people who had the dogs were poor? I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #254
323. actually, that's a good question ~you~, JeanGrey...
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 09:04 AM by NorthernSpy
Why do you call them "entitled" and what part about their I have noticed this a lot since coming here. Would you feel the same if the people who had the dogs were poor? I think not.



If some poor Hispanics were breeding big, fierce dogs in their backyard; and if they failed to keep up some of the dogs' rabies vaccinations; and if they habitually ignored the dog licensing laws; and if they were in the habit of employing illegal aliens...


AND one of those dogs seriously injured a middle class white person, whom they had hired to do some work for them, and who had entered their property under the mistaken impression that they had the dogs under control...


THEN: would YOU be as willing to cut those dog owners as many breaks as you have the Jameses?



See, I don't for a minute think you would be nearly as forgiving. In fact, I suspect you'd have a lot to say about Personal Responsibility, and Consequences For Breaking The Law, and Entitlement Attitudes -- the usual spiel.



Thing is, some of us are wont to extend special treatment to those who are demographically similar to us, and some of us aren't. That's what it boils down to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #323
397. Well to be fair, illegals breeding "big fierce dogs" would be,
Edited on Fri Dec-07-07 06:23 AM by JeanGrey
well, illegal, in the very sense they should not be there, correct? Yes I would be harsh on them for that reason but I would STILL not blame the dog if the situation was the same, they are only protecting the owner and they don't care about their owner's skin color.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #397
399. Gotcha! I said HISPANICS, not "illegals"...
HISPANICS doing what the Jameses did: breeding big, fierce dogs in their backyard and also employing illegal aliens. For my hypothetical, I merely switched the ethnicity of the Jameses and that of the mauled worker.

Also, I didn't specify the ethnicity of hypothetical illegal aliens being employed by the hypothetical HISPANICS.


But thanks for assuming. Rather a telling assumption, I'd say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #189
287. really? that's your primary means of defense?
wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #177
191. Look. He knew they had dogs. He showed up early. He was
asked to stay in the truck. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #191
193. Out of curiosity, did the man speak and understand English?
I am not being offensive here, I am wondering if this is what could have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #193
197. Mr. James' brother owns the landscaping company that employs these workers...
It turns out that the James family are in the habit of hiring the "undocumented".

So any miscommunication that may have occurred -- well, the Jameses rather brought it on themselves, now didn't they?


I haven't the slightest sympathy for them, and I'm amazed that anyone has.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #197
217. And Mr. Jones brother SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
Has his brother's business been shut? I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #193
210. Honestly, I cannot answer that question. I am assuming that he
had at least a small amount of english knowledge to do work for someone.

It would be like a dog in a fenced in yard and someone entering the yard anyway. I also read that the dogs had puppies, they hit the puppies with a rake, and grabbed the owner, falling down with her. If that happened, the dog was only doing what dogs are supposed to do. He got 250,000, none of his injuries looked permanent, why kill the dog?

I also want to know what temporary agency employs illegals - they should be shut down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #191
286. you ever mis-hear or not hear instructions told to you while in a vehicle?
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 02:58 PM by CreekDog
from someone standing outside, perhaps a fair distance away, with dogs potentially barking and whatnot?

the owners are responsible, the dogs shouldn't have attacked.

and it's shameful that you are at every turn justifying what happened to the gardener.

this he got what he deserved kind of talk is more appropriate for freerepublic, not DU.

this is just horrendous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #286
380. Can't say that I have mis-understood hearing things from my vehicle.
A dog will protect it's owner at any time when they think they are being hurt. Do you have a dog? If so, see what happens when someone grabs you and throws you to the ground! If you don't have a dog, with your attitude, don't get one! As far as you assuming that my belief is that he got what he deserves, belonging on Free Republic rather than DU, get real! Don't assume my thoughts, you know what they say about assuming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #177
205. Do you have any evidence to show that happened or are you just
ASSuming?

Why did the landscaper change his story 3 times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #205
225. if you know three versions of the landscaper's story...
... then you'll surely have no trouble spelling them out for us.


So: what are they? Recite them, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #225
245. According to documents posted on this thread, the animal control
officer testified at the hearing that the landscaper had changed his story 3 times. It's in one of the links spooky3 posted. If you want to know the 3 different stories, you'll have to check the trial record (if details were included in testimony) or ask the animal control officer. Maybe he will still have the 3 different statements he took from the lanscaper, unlike all statements from defense witnesses which were eaten by a dog supposedly under his control. He must be an outstanding animal "control" officer!

Why would the landscaper need to change his story 3 times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #245
269. regardless of the versions, the question is whether the attack was wrong or not
the attack was wrong because there was no threat to the owners (the dog thinking there was a threat notwithstanding).

the landscaper could be a pathological liar for all i care, if he was attacked when he was not considered a threat by the owners of the dog, they are wrong for not controlling their dog.

period.

they should control their dogs or not have any. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #269
308. Incorrect. The owner said she didn't know what was going on that he
just ran over and grabbed her and they fell to the ground. She was confused and scared. At that moment she did see the landscaper as a threat and I'm sure her actions in struggling against his hold was a sign to the dog to defend and protect her.

The dog was provoked into attacking. period.

When someone has to change their story 3 times, they are trying to hide something. Just like the supposed victim in the duke lacross case. It doesn't take 3 times to tell the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #225
259. Still waiting on an answer. Why would the landscaper have to change his story 3 times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #259
301. did the story change in a 'material' way?
what was the nature of the 3 versions of the story? were the changes about details that didn't change the fact of the attack or something more substantial?

let us know.

if i'd been attacked by a few dogs, my memory might be a little off-kilter for a while, especially if i had to explain it through an interpreter or in a different language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #301
309. I think you should call the animal control officer and ask him. While
you have him on the phone also ask how he managed to let a dog eat the statements of the defense witnesses.

Let us know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #259
321. uh, no -- actually, WE're still waiting for an answer from YOU...
If you're going to demand that I tell you why the worker's story had changed three times, you should at the very least be able to explain what those three versions are.

But you haven't done that, because you can't. In other words, you got nothin'.


Thing is, we're talking about a person who endured a traumatic attack, followed by three hours of surgery and five days of in-patient treatment at the hospital. He appears not to be fluent in English. All of those factors would likely have an effect on his testimony.

If we don't know what the alleged differences in his recollections actually are, or if we cannot take into account the circumstances involved, then how can we decide whether any apparent differences are significant? Simple: we can't.


Finally, I think it's rather interesting that that you find the dogcatcher reliable when he mentions three variations in the injured worker's story, but not reliable when his testimony puts the Jameses in a bad light. Why might that be, pray?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #321
327. LMAO!!!!
The animal control officer that you have highlighted over and over again is now a "dogcatcher" because he testified that the landscaper "changed his story 3 times." You have said in post after post "that was the James' side of the story" as if their statements should not be believed, yet their story has been consistent and the landscaper was not according to testimony.

There is a source on this page that shows the animal control officer testified to the story changing 3 times. You are the poster that says that the content is important, not me. So if you feel that it is important, it is your responsibility to provide that information. The fact that it took him 3 times to get his story straight is what I find significant. I've seen nothing the county provided in testimony that shows a reason why he would have changed his story. If you can provide me with that information, I will be glad to review it.

I work in the legal system and if his testimony is so poor due to a lack of english skills, a translator should have been provided. I also saw him in an interview and he has broken english, but you can certainly understand him.

The funny thing about all of this is that he holds no bad feelings for the dog and doesn't want him executed. I think he has gotten his settlement which holds liable the owners and is ready to move on. It's people like you that feel there must be some form of violent retribution that's the problem, not the landscaper. You are pushing something using him that he doesn't even want.

The James' defense attorney caught the animal control officer off guard and got him to admit to the changed stories. I don't think for one minute he wants anything but the power trip of killing a dog. That's why it makes the testimony all that more powerful because it comes from a hostile witness.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #327
347. nice try, but it's YOUR homework -- YOU do it!
There is a source on this page that shows the animal control officer testified to the story changing 3 times. You are the poster that says that the content is important, not me. So if you feel that it is important, it is your responsibility to provide that information. The fact that it took him 3 times to get his story straight is what I find significant. I've seen nothing the county provided in testimony that shows a reason why he would have changed his story. If you can provide me with that information, I will be glad to review it.


Talk about nerve...

Next you'll be telling me that it's my responsibility to do your taxes and pick up your dry-cleaning.

:eyes:


Look: if the content isn't important, then whatever point you were hoping to make on those grounds also isn't important. YOU are the one who is attempting to enter into the debate a claim about three versions of the worker's account, and therefore it's up to YOU to know this information.




The animal control officer that you have highlighted over and over again is now a "dogcatcher" because he testified that the landscaper "changed his story 3 times."

WTF? I consider the terms interchangeable. At some point, people holding perfectly respectable -- if humble -- positions decided that they all needed to be re-dignified as 'Technician' This, and 'Officer' That.


(Whatever.)


The funny thing about all of this is that he holds no bad feelings for the dog and doesn't want him executed. I think he has gotten his settlement which holds liable the owners and is ready to move on. It's people like you that feel there must be some form of violent retribution that's the problem, not the landscaper. You are pushing something using him that he doesn't even want.


You know, the hell of it is that none of you have noticed that I haven't actually advocated any particular course of action re the dog. I've said that humans are worth more than dogs, but that's it.

Of course, you'd have to read carefully to catch that, and not many of you seem to.


The James' defense attorney caught the animal control officer off guard and got him to admit to the changed stories. I don't think for one minute he wants anything but the power trip of killing a dog. That's why it makes the testimony all that more powerful because it comes from a hostile witness.


Hmmm. I take it that this is just another unsupported assumption on your part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #347
369. I see you can't answer the question nor do you bother to read.
A link in this thread talks about the testimony during the hearing and about the exchange between the attorney and the animal control officer. Unlike you, I don't have to assume because I took the time to read the information provided and do outside research for myself. You should try it sometime. It's not my job to do your research.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #369
378. if the "content is unimportant", then any point you try to make on those grounds is unimportant...
A link in this thread talks about the testimony during the hearing and about the exchange between the attorney and the animal control officer. Unlike you, I don't have to assume because I took the time to read the information provided and do outside research for myself. You should try it sometime. It's not my job to do your research.


Why don't you tell me which link specifically you're referring to?


When another poster upthread told me that he couldn't read a link that I posted, I gave him a google cache link to the same information so that he could see for himself what I was talking about. If I cite material, it's up to me to make sure that everyone can see it and evaluate it.


And when YOU cite material, peacebaby3, it's likewise up to YOU to make sure that others can see it and evaluate it for themselves. That's pretty basic, in my opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #321
329. they are consistent, any statement that supports their stand is legitimate
anything that doesn't is obviously false.

what's with you and i that we don't get that?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #177
297. If you know anything about dogs,
then you would know that if you feel threatened the last thing you should do is run away or try to get away or grab the dog's owner. Could it be possible that, unlike some people here, you're letting your own fear of dogs influence how you're looking at this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #297
300. the guy should not have been mauled for what he did, period
one shouldn't need to know ANYTHING about dogs to avoid being mauled by them when one means no harm and one wants to be left un-harmed.

it is the dog owner's responsibility to prevent that situation and short of that to stop it. the owners did neither, they are culpable, responsible and their dogs may be destroyed and/or taken away as a result of THEIR irresponsiblity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #300
307. I see you live in a densely populated area.
Things tend to be a little bit different where I live. I've always lived with or owned large dogs (not German shepherds but as big or bigger) in rural areas. Unless their breed was created for hunting or dog races and sometimes even then, they tend to be the guardian and protection breeds so they tend to be protective of their owners. You may be shocked he was bitten when he grabbed the owner; I am not.

Bottom line is that this guy should have had enough responsibility for himself and common sense to either find a dogless home to work at or not gotten out till he knew for sure that the dogs were in their kennel. In other words, if you think the dogs are unfriendly or if you know they exist and you're afraid of them you don't get out of the car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #307
320. that is not a legal basis for someone to get mauled
sorry, try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #320
355. It's called common sense.
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 06:01 PM by cornermouse
Try it sometime. You might be surprised at the results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #355
356. it's not a legal defense regarding a vicious dog
what don't you get about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #356
377. Again. It's called common sense.
You see a dog that is threatening. You don't get out of the car. You don't take the chance of getting bit. There is no lawsuit. What don't you get about that?

I put it in simple sentences just for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #377
385. i think the dog wasn't threatening when he got out of the car
or he would have stayed there.

and stop calling me stupid. this is a disagreement about what the law requires and you are simply wrong.

the law does not require common sense to avoid being mauled by a dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #385
388. I never called you stupid.
I did, however, use some of the phrases that you used against me. It is unfortunate you don't like your own words being used against you.

Application of common sense = avoidance of the pain of getting bit = no lawsuit. Sorry you don't like that. I understand things are different out there in California. If I was a member of the jury, he wouldn't get far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #172
208. Perhaps the dog watches Lou Dobbs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
207. As an interesting side note, dogs can be and often are "racist", "sexist", even "beardist"
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 12:01 PM by FarceOfNature
they can be trained to show aggression to a particular subgroup of people, or something in their early formative puppyhood could have created a bias or they might even just show aggression to the unknown (which in my opinion is most dangerous because it indicates a dog naturally predisposed to aggression and thus more difficult to socialize and rehabilitate) but dogs have been shown to exhibit prejudice against subsets of people based on appearance or other cues. Hell, I even knew a horse that would viciously attack ANY man but I could walk up and scratch behind his ears and he would fall asleep. Of course, I KNEW that horse had been brutalized by men and even my gentle father who spent months trying to earn the trust of that horse never got any closer to the horse than within proximity to hand the horse a carrot, always fearfully snatched and crunched alone in the corner of his stall.

I have no idea how this kind of insight into animal behavior should/could be used in a case like this but it raises interesting questions about the environment in which the Jamses' dogs were raised and to the extent of variety of people with whom they were socialized.

I personally believe that if you are going to own a breed like a German Shepherd, you need to be aware that they are fiercely protective. especially if you are going to fucking BREED them and keep what is essentially a fully intact and thus more independent pack structure with a mating alpha bitch and dog. If you are going to be in frequent contact with people the dog doesn't know, it is your responsibility to train the dog. German Shepherds can be trained to NEVER EVER use their mouth on anything without a verbal cue. The other option is to try to lock the dogs up whenever strangers come over but we see how well that worked. If people don't like the reality of what is involved in owning these dogs, they should consider a golden retriever or even a goldfish. Shepherds are majestic creatures and I love them, but people have to be aware of the personality these dogs have been SPECIFICALLY BRED to have.

*edited for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #207
216. Excellent post.
The fact that these people were breeders and, as you say, had an intact pack on the premises means they should be more aware of the danger involved. They should have the dogs locked up until AFTER the landscapers have come and gone - those guys work from job to job as the jobs are finished and NOT on an exact schedule. I've had dogs pretty much all my life but I never grasped the "pack" concept until we had our current mutt and our current situation with two other dogs in the building. Our dog is definitely the alpha over the other two dogs in our condo building (we share a yard).


I hate to admit it, but my dog is a little racist and size-ist. She's improved quite a bit since we've had her but she used to bark at black people on the street quite a bit. Also, she constantly "guards" my friend who is 6'4' 300 plus pounds - whenever he comes to the house, she sits next to him and guards him. If he moves, she barks at him. She lets him pet her but she doesn't like him to move around.

It's weird. I don't now if she was abused before we got her or she is just accustomed to being around short pasty white people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #216
232. thanks for your reply.
I had a racist dachshund when I was a child. She was raised in a tiny rural village and never saw anyone outside of the immediate family and random (white) visitors. One day we got a package from a new UPS man and she didn't like him one bit, and hid shivering and howling until he left. we didn't connect the dots until I went to college and brought home some of my non-white friends to the house and she was the same way with all of them. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #207
228. I am with the James's side...the dog was doing its job of protecting his source of food and comfort.
The landscaper was a threat. serves him right for coming early and not warning the James fam to lock up said dogs. Its common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #228
230. your post proves that you didn't bother to read anything about the case...
The landscaper was a threat. serves him right for coming early and not warning the James fam to lock up said dogs. Its common sense.


Hello? NOBODY, not even the Jameses, claims that it happened the way you just said.



:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #230
234. Sorry, it was in the Times article posted....which I read before posting..
I stand with the owners of the dog...the guy came early and made the mistake of grabbing the lady...who happens to feed the dogs....the guy was a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #234
237. I really and truly hope you never get anything bigger than a teacup chihuahua
and even then, NEVER EVER have small children around your home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #237
238. During my lifetime, I have raised German Shepherd, terriers, samoyeds, cats, birds, cattle, chickens
turkeys, ducks, crabs, fish, shrimp, and 4 children.. all without incident.

You live in an apartment with no pets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #238
239. how many of them did you bestow medals upon?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #239
241. They never attacked anyone....but they got steaks Xmas time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #234
267. that is not a reason to be attacked by a dog
no law of the land allows that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #234
343. I too was at a lady's house, once...
I too was at a lady's house, once. I grabbed her and held her pretty damn tight, too. Her dog attacked me. Her dog didn't know this was our first date at her house and she wanted to get intimate.

Guess I should have known better, too-- being a threat and all as I am.

(But then again, I laughed it off, she offered both her responsibility and to accept any consequences, so I asked her to stop being silly and we went to my place...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #343
354. you had it coming, hippy
oops, forgot this isn't the lounge. sorry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #230
268. the landscaper was not a threat, he intended no harm
the James' did not consider him a threat.

the dog is not an "agent" of justice under the law. what the dog "thinks" is a threat does not form the basis of "self defense". dogs "think" all kinds of things are threatening, it does not make them so.

your post is ridiculous because it excuses the owners for the behavior of their dog --in fact they are responsible for the actions of their dog precisely because the dog is not considered under the law capable of making legal decisions/determinations.

egads.

if you don't understand that you are responsible for the actions of your pet, that if he sees a threat and attacks when you don't find it threatening and you justify that behavior --you should not be allowed to keep owning that or any other dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #228
231. common sense is training a dog to STAND DOWN when it becomes aggressive
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 04:31 PM by FarceOfNature
it took three minutes to regain control of that dog. a smaller person or a bite to a major artery might have resulted in someone's death. if that was a random neighborhood child that came in to get a ball and did something the dog found threatening, such as stepping on one of the puppies, and the child suffered mortal wounds from a three minute mauling such as the landscaper suffered, would you be so cavalier about the owners' "right" to having a defensive, powerful, and untrained dog loose?

*on edit: I do not necessarily think Congo should be destroyed. But this family should certainly be evaluated in terms of their fitness to breed shepherds and even keep them. I read somewhere that Congo is only 18 months old, and already they are using him as a stud? A bunch of things points to the suggestion that this family, while perhaps well-intentioned, are not responsible about owning and especially breeding shepherds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #231
235. What the dog is supposed to do is another story...the guy came earlier than expected...
came into the yard....then grabbed the lady of the house...the dog was being protective....yes, the dog needs training to stop when ordered, but, again, thats another story...the dog needs a medal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #235
236. "the dog needs a medal".....
wow I thought the poster who referred to the dog having a "wife" was ludicrous. This statement takes the cake. Apparently this dog is anthropomorphized to the point where he's married and receiving awards. A dog that amazing should have remembered to lock himself up before strangers came over :eyes: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #236
240. If I was the owner, the dog gets a steak....and a medal....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #235
266. the dog is not supposed to attack if not warranted
the man was not a threat or the owners would not have tried to call the dog off.

bingo, there's your answer.

the owners could not control their dog, their dog harmed a person that was not a threat and thus the owners are responsible.

because the owners could not control their dog and he harmed somebody, quite seriously i might add, the dog should not under any circumstances be returned to those owners.

as another poster stated, had this been a child or had the injury been to another part of the victim's body, the result could have been grave or deadly injury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #231
364. Agreed, problem is, Gongo never had a history of agression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #228
285. serves him right? so he was supposed to get bitten and mauled?
you have no morals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #207
247. How do you think the dog determines race? They have limited color vision
and lack the fovea which contains detail sensing cells. How would they know the race of a person?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #247
255. perhaps different shade gradients
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 07:31 AM by FarceOfNature
I never pretended expertise in this, but I have read some and it seems it's not just make believe. Perhaps there are other subtler biological cues dogs pick up on that we can't even guess at. There's also research indicating some horses prefer certain colors of mares over others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #255
310. Would you please list some sources that show evidence that dogs are racist? n/t
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #310
315. reading comprehension is your friend.
I said "racist" n quotes and if you read my entire post you would understand what I essentially meant is that it seems they are able to distinguish among different subgroups of people and show aggression towards those they find threatening or scary for various or unknown reasons.

here's a link discussing some of the research I don't have time to hjump on JSTOR and find you peer reviewed academically acceptable articles :eyes: http://www.slate.com/id/2079214/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
219. Racist, Sexist DOGS!
I don't know how willfully stupid and ignorant the dog-haters on this thread are going to remain, but one of them posts (on the deleted reply), an excerpt from Dostoyevski, about rich people using dogs to attack the poor, some hysterical hate about whites and "culluds," and the wisdom at the end that "the notion of animal rights will always serve reactionary ends." Then we have the "judges are all saints" crowd, suddenly believing that all determinations of judges, even when they pronounce an animal "vicious" who has had no prior incidents and who was now protecting the human family member from a GRAB on the arm by a stranger. I hope to God my dogs will jump to it and attack if anything like that ever happens to me.

The workers arrived early, when the family was not expecting them yet, they and the dogs were outside and suddenly approached by a group that the dogs had no warning of because the people did not know it either--startled. (Why does the worker get to be startled, and the family and dogs don't?) One stranger grabbed the arm of a family member, for God knows what reason, as anything the dogs would have been able to understand. Yet we have, over and over, a complete denial and refusal of the incident as it happened, and over and over, tales of "Nazi whiteys and their perfectly trained Nazi dogs," and a disturbing explsion of hatred toward dogs, that I cannot understand at all. They are not all vicious!

Sometimes we find ourselves with a clinical dissertations on the "racist" "sexist" dogs. Perhaps this is a new social movement or successful "framing" or advertising among the more media-savvy dogs--or, maybe it is just more delusional crap among dog-haters. Even when they provide themselves with evidence of previous, known violence, abuse or threat against an animal, they instantly discount it, and this remains an elusive, non-clue to the "know-it-alls" as to the possible true origin of these incidents, and it is all transformed to "vicious dog/racist"--asinine. The human cannot possibly always be right. You have given yourself the background of violence or threat against the animal, (any animal), or the specifics of the current situation of a startled dog, and apparent attack (by grabbing) to the owner, and yet refuse, so often on this thread, to face the incident and the fact, as it is. Over and over again the claim that German Shepards are a "vicious," (as opposed to guard/protective), breed, and/or that everything has been taught and trained by a deliberate plan to murder innocent people...? This is the claim?

What has been unleashed here, among those whose hysterical animal-hate has been exposed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #219
229. my post was not anti-dog
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 04:27 PM by FarceOfNature
in fact, any dog attack/mauling is NEVER and animal's fault, incidents are always the fault or at least partial responsibility of the people who are responsible for it. I'm still trying to wade through your dense, frothing prose but I think you are overreacting. A well=trained guardian dog will take down an aggressor and then release when prompted, not maul for three minutes while the owner is screaming hysterically. These dogs were frightened, confused, and out of control. The blame lies at the owners' feet. I personally would NEVER have a shepherd around children unless it was so well behaved a toddler could bite its ears to the point of drawing blood or burn its nose with matches and it would not bite unless prompted to do so.

edited for clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #229
244. Thank You for Your Reply--Clarifying
Thank you for your reply, and I agree with all of that. My intent was not that I thought Shepards and other guard-type dogs are always safe, etc., but that I am really dismayed at the "racist" tone of the thread when I don't find any distinction between this and any other similar "startled dog" type attack. My reply was kind of scattershot there because I was responding to several other posts and a general sense of much of the thread, not just yours; apologies for that. If you read my reply #11 near the top of the thread, that is my more general thought anyway--I was actually originally angry at the "selective censorship" of the OP, and not the facts of the case, as I expressed sympathy for the victim, etc. If you read over the whole thread, you will find others upset at the "use" to which this incident was put, unrelated to the real, sad and scary attack, and what might or might not have caused it. I love hounds, by the way--about as far from attack dogs as you can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #229
253. Burn it's nose with matches without reacting? I'd like to see
that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #253
256. I'm sure any police K-9 unit's dogs are trained to that extent.
I didn't mean the dog wouldn't yelp I just meant he wouldn't BITE DEFENSIVELY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #256
359. I'd like to see any link that shows any trained dog would
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 10:25 PM by JeanGrey
withstand being burned without reacting. I could see it if they are search and rescue but that is different from someone just burning them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #229
264. I don't think it's safe for the dog to be trained to take abuse from people
There's a lot of sickos out there who like hurting animals too much to train your dog that self-defense is wrong.

As for your toddler idea, toddlers should never be allowed unsupervised around a dog of ANY breed. Let alone unsupervised to the point of drawing blood on the dog or burning it with matches (WTF?)

And I doubt that police K-9s are trained that it's okay for them to be abused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #264
293. right because I'm suggesting people actually burn their dogs
:eyes: what I mean is knowing full well that if these things DID happen, the dog would NOT FUCKING MAUL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #293
304. I didn't say that -- I'm saying toddlers shouldn't be left unsupervized with any dog
And that an animal has a right to protect itself/pack/family from physical danger (which the dog did in this case).

Regardless, police/schutzhund dogs are NOT trained to take physical abuse that you describe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #304
314. yes they are.
and especially are seeing eye dogs. I was surprised just how obedient these dogs are, they will follow over a dozen commands including "DROP IT" instantaneously. From talking to people who train service dogs, if the dogs show any form of aggression or willfullness they are considered not well suited to service and are placed in other living arrangements. My german shepherd was not shutzhund or police or service trained but she knew her place in the pack and once let a parakeet out of her mouth because we yelled DROP IT! It flew right away. That was something to be seen.She also once took by the neck and held down a feral dog found harassing the livestock; ALSO released the dog when told to DROP IT.surprise surprise dogs CAN be trained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #314
318. I know dogs can be trained -- however, I'm talking about your original posts
Edited on Wed Dec-05-07 07:23 AM by LostinVA
All I'm saying is dogs have a right to defend themselves from physical abuse. If someone holds a match to your nose, you're not going to sit there and take it, are you? Why should you expect the same of your dog?

My Border Collie PUPPY knows "drop it" along with a host of other commands, plus the names of all his toys, my wife's name, and the cat's name. Next week, he starts on sheep. I obviously expect my dog to be well-trained, but I don't expect my dog to lay down if someone is hurting him or myself. If a strange man grabbed and took down my wife or I, I'd expect my dog to protect me.

The dog is the article was doing his job. If it really was a three-minute mauling by four GSD's, the man would have ended up like Whipple. He didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #318
325. now you are disputing that the attack was three minutes?
it doesn't appear that even the owners have disputed that.

perhaps their dog was not as well trained as yours and ANY attack that is not in proportional reponse to an actual threat is unnacceptable, thus something needs to be done about the dog and its owners.

and quit shilling for them --they are not the victims, they don't even claim to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #325
350. You totally know I didn't say that, and I'm not shilling for anyone except common sense
Although, you apparently are.

I said it wasn't a three-minute mauling.

I would say to be careful, your agenda is showing, but it's way too late for that.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #350
353. i stated what my agenda was and you can paste my statement all over the place if you like
i am not ashamed of my take on this incident.

second, your splitting hairs over whether this was a three minute mauling v. three minute attack is ridiculous.

clearly to you, what happened was warranted and acceptable (meaning no penalty is really needed beyond what happened).

again, ridiculous.

and i don't think you have an agenda, but if it was to spread stupidity, you are off to a wonderful start!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #304
326. *an attack upon someone who is not a threat is never the fault of the victim.*
can i get you to agree with that last statement --at least, or is it incorrect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #219
233. LOL! Funniest post in the thread, by far...
I don't know how willfully stupid and ignorant the dog-haters on this thread are going to remain, but one of them posts (on the deleted reply), an excerpt from Dostoyevski, about rich people using dogs to attack the poor, some hysterical hate about whites and "culluds," and the wisdom at the end that "the notion of animal rights will always serve reactionary ends."



That was me! :headbang:

But it sounded way better when I said it.


The workers arrived early, when the family was not expecting them yet, they and the dogs were outside and suddenly approached by a group that the dogs had no warning of because the people did not know it either--startled. (Why does the worker get to be startled, and the family and dogs don't?) One stranger grabbed the arm of a family member, for God knows what reason, as anything the dogs would have been able to understand. Yet we have, over and over, a complete denial and refusal of the incident as it happened, and over and over, tales of "Nazi whiteys and their perfectly trained Nazi dogs," and a disturbing explsion of hatred toward dogs, that I cannot understand at all. They are not all vicious! (emphasis added by me -- NS)


Nope, sorry. That's simply not how it happened, and even the Jameses themselves aren't making those claims.

Also, those of us who aren't fans of the James twits haven't erupted in an "explosion of hatred toward dogs", and the Jameses aren't the nazis in question -- those would be the white supremacists at Stormfront who've eagerly snapped up this story.


Sometimes we find ourselves with a clinical dissertations on the "racist" "sexist" dogs. Perhaps this is a new social movement or successful "framing" or advertising among the more media-savvy dogs--or, maybe it is just more delusional crap among dog-haters. Even when they provide themselves with evidence of previous, known violence, abuse or threat against an animal, they instantly discount it, and this remains an elusive, non-clue to the "know-it-alls" as to the possible true origin of these incidents, and it is all transformed to "vicious dog/racist"--asinine. The human cannot possibly always be right. You have given yourself the background of violence or threat against the animal, (any animal), or the specifics of the current situation of a startled dog, and apparent attack (by grabbing) to the owner, and yet refuse, so often on this thread, to face the incident and the fact, as it is. Over and over again the claim that German Shepards are a "vicious," (as opposed to guard/protective), breed, and/or that everything has been taught and trained by a deliberate plan to murder innocent people...? This is the claim?

What has been unleashed here, among those whose hysterical animal-hate has been exposed?


:rofl:


NO idea what point you think you're making, but a thousand thanks for this soaring roman candle of a finale. Rock on!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #219
344. I don't think that merely disagreeing with your position...
I don't think that merely disagreeing with your position warrants calling someone a dog-hater. Sure, it makes for some pretty dramatic copy, but I imagine that on a board full of progressives, it's more often wrong than not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
220. What? A man was mauled and it wasn't a pit bull?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flying rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #220
242. Can't believe it took this long...
...for that response. Oh, and FYI Pit Bulls = Pro Chavez. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!(Unless there unless someone objects to pipe smoking).
:evilgrin:
Oh the sanctimonious outrage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #220
263. if it was a pit bull, the man would be dead..... and then the pit would have driven to his house....
....to kill his family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
246. I hate cherry picking on articles....
By cherry picking I mean posting only the parts of an article most beneficial to the OP's mindset.

Yes some people made racist arguments against the man.

No the dog shouldn't be put to death. It was defending its owner as the rest of the article clearly states. Not sure why the judge denies this, even the worker says he ran to the woman. The dog was just doing its job.

Regardless, the worker got a nice quarter million, anyone want to let their dog bite me for $250,000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedleyMisty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
257. Fuck people who kill dogs
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 08:19 AM by sleebarker
The dog is not capable of a moral decision. He would not know what he was being punished for - he would be scared and upset and then he would die, because humans fucking suck and are evil and cruel and selfish and greedy and the lowest form of life that has ever existed. Roaches look down on us. At least they're not destroying the planet and all other forms of life on it.

I have nothing against the guy, unless he did something to the dog to make him attack him - the story doesn't mention that. But the dog doesn't deserve to die. Only humans who would kill him deserve that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
277. Really crappy article...
Should I be surprised by the NY Times anymore?

They include the most idiotic quote possible in some attempt to make it look like those supporting "the dog" are automatically against humans.



There are 2 different issues here and unfortunately they are being combined. #1) Should the owner be liable to the worker and

#2) Should the dog be destroyed.


My analysis:

#1) Yes. The owner has a responsibility to control her pet and should have properly prepared for people coming that day by making sure the dog was inside the entire time. Even though the worker reacted poorly and probably could have avoided the entire situation, the owner should be responsible for FORESEEABLE accidents and someone being afraid of a dog and reacting poorly is foreseeable.

#2) No. unlike the owner, the dog SHOULDN'T be held responsible for her error. Dogs are not capable of distinguishing between someone reacting in fear and someone reacting in hostility. Someone threatening its puppies or its owner for whatever reason IS hostile and the dog can reasonably react accordingly and should not be punished for it. There is a huge difference between this and a dog leaving its property and attacking someone for no apparant reason. The reasons here are clear and although caused by the owner should not result in punishment of the animal.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
296. Those aren't Americans. They're too inhuman to be Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
311. I oppose dogs mauling illegal immigrants!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #311
337. oh, you better put your flame-retardent pants on!
no reasonable statement goes unpunished around here!

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
312. That's fucking sick.
I'm a dog lover, but still. A dog that attacks a human, depending on the circumstances, may or may not be a continuing threat. But a response like this says a hell of a lot more about the people than the dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
313. Like those WASPs are going to cut their own lawns!
Poor guy. People are sick, and getting sicker. Hope he sues the dog owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftist_not_liberal Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
322. Thank you to Lou Dobbs and the rest of the divide-and-conquer reactionaries
in our teevee news media, the equally evil twin of the nazi-infested national security state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
331. Yay, American democratic action!
Isn't it amazing what we can do when we self-govern???

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
336. Shoot the dog, and the owners!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
340. Let me get this straight
After perusing this thread, I've come to the conclusion that if you are approached/accosted by a stranger acting in an unstable manner on your property and your dog (the breed of dog that's ALWAYS on guard dog signs http://images.google.com/images?q=guard+dog+sign&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) reacts in a breed and situation appropriate manner, you and your dog are racist criminals.

BUT, going by previous threads, if I saw an unarmed hispanic man creeping about on my neighbors property, I'd be defending the constitution by calling 911 and telling them I'm gonna shoot the guy, ignore their order to not shoot, and then go out and hunt me some non-white criminal, shooting him in the back as he fled from anothers property and killing him?

WTF is up with this site????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #340
351. Tell me about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-05-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
342. Someone needs to call Wade Blasingame Esq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #342
370. LOL!!! I think Wade is posting on this thread under 2 different names! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #370
371. Woof.
None of Wade's clients ended up in the hospital dip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
376. So this guy grabs a woman because he is scared of a dog and gets his ass ripped.
Edited on Thu Dec-06-07 01:47 AM by MiltonF
And I am supposed to feel sorry for him? Sorry but he should have 1 never ran from the dog and 2 never grabbed the dogs owner, wtf was he thinking. Even my little Jack Russell will bite your ass if you grab me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-07-07 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #376
398. They sure will. As will my schnauzer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-06-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
384. We euthanize about 10,000 dogs a day in America.
Maybe the family could find a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC