# Dogs fault or owners?



## Cruentus (Dec 26, 2006)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/276734/pit_bull_vs_dog_handler/

I am going to go with saying it is the owners fault on this one. What a shame...


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 26, 2006)

I agree with the overwhelming majority of the comments posted on that site.

The owner deserved to be arrested, and jailed for assault with a deadly weapon.  She had every opportunity to simply comply in the first place, and when she opened up the door and gave the order to the dog to attack, then the dog did what it was told, and attacked the officer. 

The dog is a dumb animal; it did what it was trained to do, and that was to protect its owner from its own point of view.  However, it was the dirt bag owner that twisted this loyalty, and used that dog as a weapon in a criminal manner.  

I found it really pathetic at the end, when the owner was crying and saying "I didn't want to be arrested!"


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2006)

Poor Dog.

Horrible Owner. 

Personally if the guy had hit her the owner in the head while trying to protect the officer I would have called it justified in my books. 

I also think 6 months is too little time for the owner. She "warned" the officer and crew and then sent the dog out to them. 

Poor Dog having to have lived with such a horrible owner. 
Poor people that had been the result of her telling the dog to attack them.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 26, 2006)

I'd have to say it was the dog's fault as it clearly has more intelligence than the owner! Seriously though why would she have a dog like that and not be able to control it?


----------



## Kacey (Dec 26, 2006)

Dogs do what they are trained to do - and this dog was trained to attack on command.  It is the dog's misfortune to belong to a jackass; this was totally the owner's fault.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 26, 2006)

Owner fault without a doubt, dogs just obey what they are told to do and trained to do.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 26, 2006)

Owner's fault all the way and six months is a short sentence for an owner that allowed their dog to attack and seriously injure three people.  I would feel differntly maybe about the sentence if it were an accident but with this lady it certainly was no accident.

The sad thing is the people who were scarred severly in these incidents and the dog which was probably destroyed. (I would be shocked if it was not)  All this happened because of a terrible owner.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 26, 2006)

So let me get this correct. Someone can train a dog to attack and thats ok I agree. But when they use the dog as a weapon, its the owners fault. That seems to be the consensus here. Now how does that dog differ from a gun? Every time some one shoots someone else all we see is outlaw guns, its the guns fault. Why are we not outlawing dogs in general? Every one that owns a dog is not using it as a weapon. And every one who owns a gun is not using it as a weapon either.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 26, 2006)

OMG. That is just unbelievable. Definitely the owners fault. The dog was obeying orders. You could see it loved it's "master" and was not being viscious on it's own accord. It was trained to attack, and when given the command it obeyed as any *good* dog would obey it's master.


----------



## bydand (Dec 26, 2006)

Owners fault 100%.  She should have gotten much more time than that.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 26, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I'd have to say it was the dog's fault as it clearly has more intelligence than the owner! Seriously though why would she have a dog like that and not be able to control it?


 
She had a dog like that so she could control it, and use it to bite people when she isn't getting her way. This wasn't just a case of someone not being able to control her dog, it was a case of someone deliberatly using the dog (and the dogs loyalty) as a weapon.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 26, 2006)

jetboatdeath said:


> So let me get this correct. Someone can train a dog to attack and thats ok I agree. But when they use the dog as a weapon, its the owners fault. That seems to be the consensus here. Now how does that dog differ from a gun? Every time some one shoots someone else all we see is outlaw guns, its the guns fault. Why are we not outlawing dogs in general? Every one that owns a dog is not using it as a weapon. And every one who owns a gun is not using it as a weapon either.


From what I (and others) saw on the video the owner simply opened up her door and the dog came charging out and went straight to the animal control officer. Did she whisper "sic 'em sic 'em" ? We'll never know, but having (_any_) dog as POTENTIALLY dangerous as that is like having a gun... you'd better be in control of it at all times. Dogs (large to medium ones) can and have killed people. 
Police K-9 officers will tell you that they can call back their animals when need to and will have their animals STAY right by them until the command to attack has been given. Just like a finger on the trigger. The owner of the gun/dog is ultimately responsible. Even if a dog is NOT attack trained and the animal is just aggressive by it's (individual) nature, as some dogs can be, the owner still has responsiblity to have control over the animal(s) to ensure it doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2006)

jetboatdeath said:


> So let me get this correct. Someone can train a dog to attack and thats ok I agree. But when they use the dog as a weapon, its the owners fault. That seems to be the consensus here. Now how does that dog differ from a gun? Every time some one shoots someone else all we see is outlaw guns, its the guns fault. Why are we not outlawing dogs in general? Every one that owns a dog is not using it as a weapon. And every one who owns a gun is not using it as a weapon either.



If you asked me about Guns and shooting it still takes someone to pull the trigger and that person is at fault. 

Your sarcasm is understandable.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 26, 2006)

jetboatdeath said:


> So let me get this correct. Someone can train a dog to attack and thats ok I agree. But when they use the dog as a weapon, its the owners fault. That seems to be the consensus here. Now how does that dog differ from a gun? Every time some one shoots someone else all we see is outlaw guns, its the guns fault. Why are we not outlawing dogs in general? Every one that owns a dog is not using it as a weapon. And every one who owns a gun is not using it as a weapon either.



Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?  Either the dog reacted because it was trained to react that way, or it reacted because it wasn't trained to *not* react that way - either way, it is the fault of the person who did - or did not - train the dog.  When we take pets into our homes - an artificial environment that, no matter how domesticated, their instincts do not understand - it is our responsibility to train them to behave in a societally acceptable manner, and this person did not; either she trained it to attack, or she failed to train it not to attack, but either way, the fault is hers, not the dog's.


----------



## matt.m (Dec 26, 2006)

Owner all the way.  Look, whenever I tell my dog to sit it does.  When I tell my dog to jump it does.  I feel bad for the animal.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 27, 2006)

matt.m said:


> Owner all the way. Look, whenever I tell my dog to sit it does. When I tell my dog to jump it does. I feel bad for the animal.


 

I agree, it's a shame some people are allowed to own dogs or any other animals for that matter. Although I was being sarcastic when I said the dog was at fault because it had more intelligence than the owner, I think sadly the dog was the more intelligent and certainly didn't deserve the death sentence I assume it got. As others have said it's a dog behaving as dogs do.


----------



## Drac (Dec 27, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Owner fault without a doubt, dogs just obey what they are told to do and trained to do.


 
Yep...At more than one call I've asked owners to place their dog inside the house to insure officers safety



MA-Caver said:


> Police K-9 officers will tell you that they can call back their animals when need to and will have their animals STAY right by them until the command to attack has been given. Just like a finger on the trigger.


 
100% correct..I've worked very close with K-9 officers..


----------



## morph4me (Dec 27, 2006)

The fact that she told the officer that she was letting the dog out and she'd better leave proves she knew the dog was dangerous and released it anyway. the sentance wasn't long enough, unfortunately the dog will pay the ultimate price.


----------



## Drac (Dec 27, 2006)

If they used the same stringent backround checks for pets as they did for children there'd be fewer incidents and less animals running loose..


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2006)

morph4me said:


> The fact that she told the officer that she was letting the dog out and she'd better leave proves she knew the dog was dangerous and released it anyway. the sentance wasn't long enough, unfortunately the dog will pay the ultimate price.



Re-reading some of the replies... and read yours Morph... I don't think it's unfortunate that the dog will pay the ultimate price. The dog is ultimately dangerous and attacked a child, it could have very well killed the girl.  Dogs like that should be put down because to me it makes them irredeemable and incorrigeable <sic>. 
True not all dogs and not all pit-bulls are mean as this one. But once an animal tastes blood, once an animal has been trained to attack MAN, it cannot be trusted e-v-e-r again and should be put down. 

People talk about the wonders of genetics all the time and seem to keep forgetting that genetics will play a major role in the long run of how something looks or acts/behaves. Pit bulls were bred for a long time to fight and DIE in the ring. I've never read anywhere if the dogs were used for anything else *except* pit fighting. 
You just don't give a dog (bred) for that your 100% trust. E-v-e-r!


----------



## Kacey (Dec 27, 2006)

Drac said:


> If they used the same stringent backround checks for pets as they did for children there'd be fewer incidents and less animals running loose..



There are background checks for children?  I wish there were... anyone can go out and get pregnant - I had to fill out several pages of information (including the size of my house, height and condition of my fence, past experience with dogs, etc.) to adopt Sable from the Denver Dumb Friends' League.  Unfortunately, too many people breed dogs who don't know how to breed healthy dogs... which could easily be said for some of the parents out there, as well.



MA-Caver said:


> Re-reading some of the replies... and read yours Morph... I don't think it's unfortunate that the dog will pay the ultimate price. The dog is ultimately dangerous and attacked a child, it could have very well killed the girl.  Dogs like that should be put down because to me it makes them irredeemable and incorrigeable <sic>.
> True not all dogs and not all pit-bulls are mean as this one. But once an animal tastes blood, once an animal has been trained to attack MAN, it cannot be trusted e-v-e-r again and should be put down.
> 
> People talk about the wonders of genetics all the time and seem to keep forgetting that genetics will play a major role in the long run of how something looks or acts/behaves. Pit bulls were bred for a long time to fight and DIE in the ring. I've never read anywhere if the dogs were used for anything else *except* pit fighting.
> You just don't give a dog (bred) for that your 100% trust. E-v-e-r!



Pit bulls, like many other maligned breeds (doberman, rottweilers, etc.) were bred to be guard dogs, and are fiercely loyal to their families - like German shepherds, they can be very good K-9 dogs; the ones that are bred as show dogs are very intelligent and do not attack people.  Unfortunately, pit bulls (along with several other breeds) were chosen for their fierceness and loyalty to be used - and then bred - for dog fights, but that was not their original breeding.  Well-bred pit bulls (which includes several breeds, collectively and properly known as American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers) are wonderful dogs, very high energy like most terriers, and very good with children; it's too bad they were chosen for fighting and had their reputation as a breed destroyed.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 27, 2006)

I agree, the dog has to be put down now that it has attacked and injured 3 people, but I don't blame the dog for that.  If the owner was responsible and in control that never should have happened, and the dog would not have to be put down. 

I think that it's unfortunate that the dog has to pay for the owners irresponsibility, and that, as part of her sentence, the owner should be the one to put him down.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?  Either the dog reacted because it was trained to react that way, or it reacted because it wasn't trained to *not* react that way - either way, it is the fault of the person who did - or did not - train the dog.



Kacey, Brain wasn't arguing that it wasn't the owners fault... he was asking how we can fault the owner and not the dog in that case, but in the case of a shooting fault the gun and not the owner... he means in both cases the owner is to blame.  We had a discussion about this after training last night.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 27, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Well-bred pit bulls are wonderful dogs,



I agree, the *best* dog I have ever owned was a Shepherd Pit mix... and that nasty horrible violent temper pits are supposed to be famous for NEVER showed up.  As a Child, my older brother had a Pit, and as a kid, the things I used to do to that dog... and it tolerated everything.

They arent bad dogs at all... I think the people who buy them make them that way.


----------



## Drac (Dec 27, 2006)

Drac said:


> If they used the same stringent backround checks for pets as they did for children there'd be fewer incidents and less animals running loose..


 


Kacey said:


> There are background checks for children? I wish there were... anyone can go out and get pregnant


 
I should have said backround checks for adoption of children..


----------



## Kacey (Dec 27, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Kacey, Brain wasn't arguing that it wasn't the owners fault... he was asking how we can fault the owner and not the dog in that case, but in the case of a shooting fault the gun and not the owner... he means in both cases the owner is to blame.  We had a discussion about this after training last night.



That's what I was saying - we can fault the owner and not the dog because the dog's actions were governed by the training it either did or did not recieve.  Unfortunately, unlike a gun, a dog is a living, learning creature - and this one learned to attack people, which is why it was (most likely) put down - because that type of training, intentional or not, is very hard to reverse.  It was no more the dog's fault than it would be the fault of a gun, but guns, once owned by responsible people, can be controlled; dogs taught that attacking people is acceptable behavior often cannot be controlled later - properly trained dogs, like the K-9 dogs trained for police work, are an exception - the key concept here being *properly trained*.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 27, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree, the *best* dog I have ever owned was a Shepherd Pit mix... and that nasty horrible violent temper pits are supposed to be famous for NEVER showed up.  As a Child, my older brother had a Pit, and as a kid, the things I used to do to that dog... and it tolerated everything.
> 
> They arent bad dogs at all... I think the people who buy them make them that way.


Okay, so ... just to play devil's advocate and tangent for a few - and given that I am still on freaking dial-up internet and am *still* downloading the video - do you think there is anything at all to do with an individual pup going haywire as a result of breeding?  Most dogs are bred for temperment but even the best, most responsible breeders have the occasional pup which isn't "ideal" or in some cases "perfect" and the animal has a neurological misfire?

Again, please note I'm not speaking to this particular instance as I'm *still* downloading the video ... thanks.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 27, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree, the *best* dog I have ever owned was a Shepherd Pit mix... and that nasty horrible violent temper pits are supposed to be famous for NEVER showed up.  As a Child, my older brother had a Pit, and as a kid, the things I used to do to that dog... and it tolerated everything.
> 
> They arent bad dogs at all... I think the people who buy them make them that way.



My sister owns a pit and rottweiler...two of the biggest babies you've ever seen. And she has a 7-year-old daughter that has crawled all over these dogs since day one.



> Okay, so ... just to play devil's advocate and tangent for a few - and given that I am still on freaking dial-up internet and am *still* downloading the video - do you think there is anything at all to do with an individual pup going haywire as a result of breeding? Most dogs are bred for temperment but even the best, most responsible breeders have the occasional pup which isn't "ideal" or in some cases "perfect" and the animal has a neurological misfire?
> 
> Again, please note I'm not speaking to this particular instance as I'm *still* downloading the video ... thanks.


I think dog that are the product of too much inbreeding can definitely have behavioral problems aside from training. I owned a purebred chow-chow. That's a squirrely breed to begin with but he was also a bit inbred. I loved that dog but he was a bit whacked. 

I think it can happen. In this particular case however, I would say it is not a factor. Once you watch the video you will understand.  
I think dog's that "snap" so to speak, do not differentiate from their owners vs. someone else. A dog who "snaps" or goes haywire will bite or attack the owner in it's frenzy as well as anyone else. This dog clearly avoided harming it's owner and the owner told the woman who was attacked that she better leave or she was going to get bitten. I think she commanded the dog to attack.

All that to say, I believe that yes, some dogs no matter how good the breeding, can have temperment problems as much as people do. But in most cases these things can be identified as behavioral problems and dealt with before the dog has the opportunity to snap.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2006)

Drac said:


> I should have said *backround* checks for adoption of children..


You're still saying backround... your G key is stuck there Drac... :lol: 
-------------------------

As a dog lover I will stand with those who say it is sad that a dog has turned out this way and that it has to be put down simply because the owner "allowed" the dog (allowed: like trained or ignored aggressive tendencies) to be vicious. 
Granted the dog didn't bite the owner which I guess is a good thing. She was too fat to be able to do anything except maybe sit on the dog to protect herself. But she is clearly irresponsible to have allowed the dog to become that vicious without proper control. 
The dog did back off when the owner came between the officer and the dog but she should've been able to use a voice command to halt the animal's charge (I've seen it done) to prevent a full blown attack as seen in the video. 
Clearly the owner didn't think things through and had probably wanted to use the dog to try and intimidate the officer herself rather than go full out attack. Yeah she warned the officer but still didn't do anything to stop the dog before contact was made. Maybe I'm reading into a lot here with that woman but she seemed to know what would happen when that dog got out of the house. She didn't even make an attempt to stop the dog from charging out the door. Not the fastest thinker I can see that right now. Nor a "consenquential thinker" either. 
Ok, a dog that is loved and cared for and trained properly can be safe. Just like a hand-gun owner who learns proper handling and trains with the weapon. But I for one with my past experience with dozens upon dozens of dogs will absolutely not give my 100% trust in the animal. Small dogs like the toy breeds not-with-standing as you can always drop kick those little buggers if they start getting nasty.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 27, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Okay, so ... just to play devil's advocate and tangent for a few - and given that I am still on freaking dial-up internet and am *still* downloading the video - do you think there is anything at all to do with an individual pup going haywire as a result of breeding? Most dogs are bred for temperment but even the best, most responsible breeders have the occasional pup which isn't "ideal" or in some cases "perfect" and the animal has a neurological misfire?
> 
> Again, please note I'm not speaking to this particular instance as I'm *still* downloading the video ... thanks.




Just like humans, there would be some socially unacceptable dogs as well. 

The issue was that the dog was fine, and then the command was given and even ran out wagging its' tail and tongue hanging out like any dog looking to "Play" or do their trick to get their reward.  (* I know you said you had not seen it.  Dial up sucks *)

If the dog had been in an agressive mode where its hackles were up, and or not loping around looking for play, but head down and growling then one could say the dog was not good for society. (* Assuming it had not been told to do such acts *)


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Just like humans, there would be some socially unacceptable dogs as well.
> 
> The issue was that the dog was fine, and then the command was given and even ran out wagging its' tail and tongue hanging out like any dog looking to "Play" or do their trick to get their reward.  (* I know you said you had not seen it.  Dial up sucks *)
> 
> If the dog had been in an agressive mode where its hackles were up, and or not loping around looking for play, but head down and growling then one could say the dog was not good for society. (* Assuming it had not been told to do such acts *)



Rich... what Video were _you_ watching?


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 27, 2006)

How can you say something like "You better get out of here if you don't want to get bitten" and then be surprised when they arrest you??  

The bottom line is that dogs have no ethics.  They are trained to obey and in the absence of training, they follow instincts.  People have ethics and should be held accountable when they have none and use a defenseless dog as a weapon.  

I agree - completely owner's fault.  It is a shame that the dog will be punished for being loyal and doing what it was trained to do - although it is even more the owner's fault for not having control and for not instilling the proper training in the dog.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 27, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Rich... what Video were _you_ watching?




MA,

When the dog is in the house it is not barking.

When the dog runs out its' tail is going side to side and is not straight up or straight out and remaining there.

The dogs ears are up and flopping and not back.

I cannot see his teeth while he is running out. 

He runs out and looks around for someone to bite. He attacks the officer. (* She puts her arm up in defense which is used in training when people are wearing sleeves for protection *) The dog has bitten down and is exhibiting similiar traits to other dogs I have played Tug of War with. 

After the dog is hit and is hit again and or called off, not knowing his commands, he looks at his owner with a dejected look of why is she upset and why did he get hit. He did what he was told. 

I grew up on a street where someone as able to get the dog out of the military with them The dog could climb fences. He was trained to attack/hurt people. He had bit lots of the kids on the street. I always kept eye to eye contact with the dog even in his cage so I knew where he was. If he was on his chain I did it even more so. If he came at me, and I saw him go after some others, it was not fun and play for the dog it was serious and growls and 200% life and death. The wife of the owner let him out from time to time. He would then chase kids on bikes and bite them. I used my bike as a shield and even as a weapon. 

I have a friend who has a K9 officer partner. Me and his partner (* Shepard *) were playing tug of war. I would even pick the dog up while he hung onto the rope. The dog did not like this. He did not get mad. He thought what could he do after the fourth or fifth time. When he felt he would be pickd up off of the ground he lounged forward his front paws pinned me to the wall while his back paws were still on the ground. He never growled, I never saw his teeth in an agressive manner. When he pinned me, I let go of the rope and praised him for a job well done. While others who were even dog trainers and breeders were visible and audible upset. The owner/officer stepped into the room and wanted to know what was going on. I explained to him what had happened. He was a police dog in the first year of his training, and I knew the method used had no negatives at this point. Hence my praise for being smart and using a new tactics. (* Later the dog actual pinned a suspect in a similiar manner *) The dog was not being mean nor being aggressive in behaviour other than following a command to bite or attack. 

Based upon my experiences listed here as well as others, and I am no expert, I made my comments that the dog was "playing" and "following instructions". Play Dead. High Five. Attack. All are the same to the dog.

I have no problems with an animal/dog being trained this way at all. Just like any tool for self-defense or tool for a specific job it can be used both good and bad. 

So does that help?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 27, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> MA,
> 
> When the dog is in the house it is not barking.
> 
> ...


Rich, it helps to see your point of view certianly ... but regardless of what happened on the video, the dog(s) attacked when not provoked. A little girl, an innocent child, was bitten (mauled?) by this particular animal. Your neighbors dog "terrified" his neighborhood whenever he was free. Where are the ethics and responsibility in those? You can teach a dog to basically do anything you want it to within the dog's physical and mental capabilites. But ethics demand responsible training and handling of an animal that is potentially dangerous to people... particularly children. 
I can see we differ in our perspectives of the video... What I saw and what you saw are clearly two different things. Well that's what makes the world go 'round ... having respect for each other's view point. 
Peace man... to continue this will be just back and forth on the dog was mean, the dog was playful. 

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 28, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Rich, it helps to see your point of view certianly ... but regardless of what happened on the video, the dog(s) attacked when not provoked. A little girl, an innocent child, was bitten (mauled?) by this particular animal. Your neighbors dog "terrified" his neighborhood whenever he was free. Where are the ethics and responsibility in those? You can teach a dog to basically do anything you want it to within the dog's physical and mental capabilites. But ethics demand responsible training and handling of an animal that is potentially dangerous to people... particularly children.
> I can see we differ in our perspectives of the video... What I saw and what you saw are clearly two different things. Well that's what makes the world go 'round ... having respect for each other's view point.
> Peace man... to continue this will be just back and forth on the dog was mean, the dog was playful.
> 
> :asian:



MA,

I feel for those that were bit.

The surgery for the little girl. 

The adults that were attacked.

I do not deny that the dog did not bite and damage people. The dog exactly as it was trained to do. 

I relate this to the knife disarms that I see taught sometimes, and the following of the person to immediately stab the person back. No one covers the issues of liability of that student. They have the weapon and are now the aggressor. Yes they are smarter than the dog (* we all hope *), but if it is instinct for them to execute a technique and then following it up with another technique automatically. In this case one could argue it is the fault of the student. But ethically, I say the instructor who did not explain what they were doing to the person with the counter / follow up. They did explain the local laws for knives or advise for them to check themsleves. 

Yet as stated the dog is not a human, and therefore it is trained like a robot to do a command once the command is given. In this case, the person who gave the command is at fault. It is like the person who pulled a trigger of a gun. They made the decision. 

I respect that some may argue the dog should be put down. I respect that some may argue that the dog did damage humans and should be controlled. My point was that, in my opinion it was the owners fault. She should have been in jail or prison a lot longer than 6 months. I also think she should be liable for all medical costs for those invovled. Not that she would pay it. But when you hit people in the pocket they tend to listen. 

So, I respect your points as well MA. 

Keep up the discussion.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 28, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> MA,
> 
> When the dog is in the house it is not barking.
> 
> ...



I agree. The dog does not appear viscious by nature at all. It's obviously obeying it's owner and from what I observed of the attack, I bet the dog would have happily greeted the Animal Control Officer as quickly as it attacked if it's owner had not commanded the latter. When the dog was hit and stunned you can see it looking at it's owner in surprise and for direction. AND it continues it's attack on the animal control officer even though the man who hit the dog with the stick it still there. The dog ignored him completely and continued focusing on the person it was *instructed* to.

At the beginning of the video it is stated that the dog was "told" to attack the landlord and his daughter. Also, during the attack the dog is wagging it's tail and it's ears are forward, not pinned back. After it was hit a couple times and retreated you could see it looking at it's owner with a cowering countenance because the dog was concerned with being scolded.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 28, 2006)

I'm going to chime in here, and hopefully clear some things up. Some of you are right on the money with your statements, and some of you are way off based. Hopefully, I can clear up some misconceptions.

1. The dog was clearly trained and commanded to attack people. This was no accident. This was NOT as a result of her not being able to control her animal.

First, the beginning of the video stated that the dog was "told" to attack the landlord.

Later in the video and right before she sends her dog, the lady says in a very telling and threatening tone to the officer, "Benjamin's coming out so if you don't want to get bitten, then you'd better get out of here."

The Dog was aggressive, but there are different types of aggression. This dog was not _fearful aggressive_, _prey aggressive, or territorial aggressive_. 

Fear aggression is natural. If the dog was aggressive because he was afraid (due to poor socialization, usually), then the attack could have been an accident; many accidents occur as a result of fearful aggression. But fearful aggressive dogs are not going to run out and bite someone; they are going to stand their ground or back away while baring teeth. The tail will be between the legs a bit, the ears will be back, and they will be slightly crouched. They will most likely be barking erratically and barring teeth, and possibly frothing. They won't bite unless they feel they have no choice. The dog showed none of these charactaristics, demonstrating that the dog was not biting because he was afraid.

Prey aggression is also a natural aggression, but it only manifests itself when the dog is chasing something that it associates as prey; like a ball, a small animal, or possibly a person. The officer was not running to create a prey drive, so this was clearly not prey agression. 

Territorial aggression manifests itself in some dogs, and is a result of a dog protecting it's area or territory. "Pit Bull" type dogs, however, generally are not genetically territorial over property. This is why other dogs like rotts and shepards generally are better at guarding property then pits. Regardless, if it was trying to say "get off my land!" then it would have postured more then attacked. This is because the goal in territorial aggression is to make the subject go away. So, there is usually a lot of barking and pouncing with the front feet and posturing that occurs in this type of aggression, and biting is only used as a last resort.

No, this dog showed what we call "dominant" or "challange" aggression. This is when the dog wants to challange and directly confront the subject. The dog goes directly to the officer without hesitation and bites. His ears were up and not back, his tail was up, and he had confident pose. He was shaking his head and trying to destroy the bite object (the officers hand, in this case). Challange aggression is what we see in shutzhund sports and Police training when the dog is trained to attack. This dog was not expertly trained, but he was indeed trained to some degree to bite someone when his owner commanded it.

So make no mistake; this owner commanded the dog to attack the officer, just like the video stated she had done to the landlord.

2. All dogs can be aggressive at various times. It is a natural response to a stressor, as is avoidence, submission, or flight. Some dogs tend to react with aggression more so then the other options. Some of this is genetic; but having more to do with individual dogs genetic make-up rather then breed. Breed is to broad of a category to determine potential for aggressive response (ex. you might have one collie that is naturally aggressive when threatened, and another that is avoident when threatened).

However, if this was a case of the dogs natural genetic traits coming to play, then it would have not likely been dominant aggressive without provication. If the animal would have responded to an active stimulus aggressively, then we could argue that genetics had more of a significant role. The stimulus (officer) was not doing anything active to provoke an aggressive response. 

It is important to note that genetics, even in a highly genetically aggressive animal, is only part of the equation. Environment is always the determining factor. In almost all cases, even very highly aggressive dogs may never be a problem if brought up in the right environment.

So, it is clear that this was a case of envronment over genetics. The dog was taught, at least to some degree, to attack and be dominant aggressive on command. This was not a case of the "genetics taking over" or the dog "losing control.

*More later....*

I have to cut this post short, but I do have a few more bullet points to cover. I'll post more later, giving you all time to chew this over...


----------



## Lisa (Dec 28, 2006)

What a *****, it is too much for me to say that I wish the owner received the same fate as the dog?

*shakes head..some people really get my goat.

Paul, a little off topic here, but I thought of you....

Driving to the hospital the other morning, I was stopped at a light, looked over to see what had to be a 70 - 80 pound pit bull sitting on the front steps of a house, with a small child on either side of him as they were waiting for a school bus in a not so nice area of town.  There he was licking their faces and wagging his tail.  He easily outweighed each child by at least 30 pounds.  You could just tell...he was their protector and loved them to bits.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 29, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Paul, a little off topic here, but I thought of you....
> 
> Driving to the hospital the other morning, I was stopped at a light, looked over to see what had to be a 70 - 80 pound pit bull sitting on the front steps of a house, with a small child on either side of him as they were waiting for a school bus in a not so nice area of town. There he was licking their faces and wagging his tail. He easily outweighed each child by at least 30 pounds. You could just tell...he was their protector and loved them to bits.


 
Cute!  Reminds me of my doggie with my two 2 1/2 yr old neices.

On topic, some additional points that didn't have time to post last time:

*1. "Pit Bulls" as fighting dogs...*

I thought I would provide a little information about the fighting history of 'pits' to clear up some more misconceptions. Some people adhere to the ubiquitous idea that because of the fighting roots of the dog, that the breed is inherently dangerous to some degree, or "can't be trusted." This is utterly not the case.

As someone mentioned before; "Pit Bull" dogs are a type rather then a breed; like retrievers or pointers for example. It covers many breeds such as American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, and American Bulldog, and any mix of the above. They all come from the same bulldog root. It is thought by many circles that what we know as the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) today is actually the original "bulldog." Old photo's and drawings and paintings dating as far back as the 15th century show pictures of the old bulldogs from Europe and the America's; and they resemble the APBT of today. These pictures and references date back before the supposed blend of bull-mastiffs and terriers were believed to occur. But some believe that it was a larger bull type dog (mastiff) and a terrier that was mixed to create the APBT. Regardless, we'll never know for sure.

But, we do know that the APBT is what the other "pit bull" type dogs stemmed from. But, all other "pit bull" dogs besides the APBT has been far removed from the old fighting roots. Staffordshire terriers were breed to be smaller companion dogs in England (granting it the nickname of "nanny dog"), Bull-Terriers and staffordhire terriers have been bred mainly as show dogs. American Bulldogs are a fairly new breed comparitively; they were bred for those who wanted a larger dog with a APBT look. They look exactly like Pits, but they generally weight 70-85lbs. APBT generally don't exceed 60lbs. When people say they see a "large pit of 70 or 80 lbs" they are most likely seeing an Amer. Bulldog, unless they are completely mistaken all together. There are some dogs with APBT papers that have been bred really big (in the 60-80lb range), but these are very rare.

The point of me telling you all of this is that most of these "pit bulls" have been bred well outside of their fighting history. It is really only the APBT that might retain any of that. So, lets forget about the other pit bull type dogs, and discuss the APBT fighting history.

American Pit Bull Terriers were named as such with the formation of the UKC. Prior to that (and even after that through the WWII era) they were just called "bulldogs."

Bulldogs got there name from the medieval practice of "bullbaiting." This came from the idea in England and Europe that meat had to be tenderized before the bull was killed for it to be good. So, they would send small, atheletic "bulldogs" that were incredably resilient and could jump and bite, clamping on the bulls nose. The dog would shake its head from side to side (as this video had shown on the officers hand) and actually bring the bulls head down, and the body would often follow. Horse owners will know that you can render a horse motionless by pinching above the septum of the horse. This same sort of thing would happened when the "bulldog" would clamp on the bulls nose. Once the dog clamped down, the bull would be rendered motionless, and then the butcher and friends would beat the bull on the body, then execute it.

This very brutal practice became a spectator sport, and people began gambling on who would win; the dog or bull. This went on for 100's of years until through science it was confirmed that this was not neccessary, and the practice was outlawed in the 1800's. At that point, people weren't allowed to gamble with bullbaiting; so they began dog fighting. This proceeded as a very organized sport, and is still a very organized sport today where high money is at stake, even though it is now underground and illegal.

Now, I will say for the record that I dispise dog fighting and dog fighters. My lifes dream would be to take down a dog fighting ring. I think it is cruel and psychopathic.

That said, there were some good things that came out of the dog fighting era, even if these things could have been realized a different way.

Dog fighting basically went like this. There would be a ring with wooden walls about waist height. After the dogs were washed and checked by the ref., they would be brought into the ring by their handlers. The ref would stay in the middle. They would be brought to the "scratch line" and they would fight. If the activity wasn't there or for other reasons, the ref would stop, the handlers would pull the dogs off, and they would restart at the scratch line. This same practice is done today in professional illegal circles. 

Now, I am telling you this for a reason. I want you to understand that fighting dogs, or dogs with fighting blood lines even, are not inclined to bite people. This is because a dog would have to be brought into a ring to fight for it's life, but was not allowed to bite the handler or ref who was also in the ring with it. This was considered a trait of a "cur" or weaker mutt dog. If the dog bit the handler or ref., the dog was not allowed to breed and was often executed. Blood lines for these people are just as important now as at was when dog fighting was legal because it is big money. A fighting dog that is considered G. champion could sell pups today for as much as $20,000. Yet, a "cur" dog who lost or gave up a fight, or bit a handler, would ruin the reputation of that breeder if he were to try to sell the pups. These people are so much into this "pure" and "high-quality" blood line that they will usually kill a dog that loses a fight or bites a person.

What this means is that fighting dogs are not inclined to bite people. They have been bred, actually, to not bite people even under high stress. This, and they have also been bred for extreme loyalty, tenacity, agility, stamina, strength, and gameness. It is these traits that makes them a great all around working and family dog. This is why so many families own APBT, and are happy with them. This is why they are used in the working dog world and the legal sport arena (flyball, shutzhund, etc.). They are one of the most versitile breeds.

But, they are not genetically inclined to bite people. So, don't think that because they were bred at one time to fight other animals that they "can't be trusted" around humans. This is a completely inaccurate idea. When you see or hear of a APBT bite a human; first of all it most likely isn't an APBT. It is likely a mix or something that resembles the breed. This happends more often then not. But if it truly is an APBT that is aggressive towards humans, then it is that way because someone made it that way through neglect, abuse, or by training it to be that way. 

It isn't because of the genetics of the breed. 

2. *Another misconception: dogs who are trained to bite humans must be Euthanized because they are a danger, or can never be trusted.*

If this were true, then we wouldn't have police dogs and police dog programs, and shutzhund and ringsport would not be a viable sport. Dogs properly trained to do a job or protect are generally better balanced and less likely to bite a person on "accident." Also, dogs trained to bite are also trained to "out." Any dog, including yours, could bite if the circumstances were right. But, would yours "out" if you told it too? Most would not, unless previously trained. But a dog trained properly how to protect would.

So, be careful with these generalizations. There are correct and responsible ways to train protection with dogs, as our many K-9 units have demonstrated. These dogs aren't a danger to society.


----------



## Carol (Dec 30, 2006)

Owner's fault, but it was was downright mortifying to watch the animal control officer get mauled while that motard with a camera was just standing there watching her get chewed up.  

The disgust I had with that was increased by hearing the voiceover intone... "Thankfully, a good samaritan came to the aid of (the officer)..."  Yeah. What a shame it wasn't the good samaritan was not the idiot that couldn't be bothered by putting down the camera to help the woman shrieking in pain.


----------

