Pit Bulls need to pick on their own species
Sep 1, 1:03 AM EDT
6-year-old boy killed by pet pit bull, police say
DALLAS (AP) -- A 6-year-old boy died Friday after he was mauled by his family's pet pit bull, police said.
Scott Warren was inside his house Friday evening with his 13-year-old sibling when the dog attacked, Dallas police spokesman Sgt. Gil Cerda said. Family members told police the 1-year-old dog did not have a history of aggressive behavior.
"When the mother came inside the house, she saw the dog attacking the 6-year-old and tried to restrain the dog," Cerda said. "By that time, a lot of damage had been done."
Warren was taken to a hospital, where he died, Cerda said.
The fatal mauling comes a day before a new state law takes effect in which dog owners whose pets attack and seriously injure someone could face up to 10 years in prison. In a fatal attack, the sentence could increase to up to 20 years.
Cerda said it's too early to say whether anyone will face criminal charges.
Animal control officers removed the dog from the home. Its fate has not been decided, Cerda said.
"In many of these cases, the dog is normally euthanized," Cerda said.
![]()
Pit Bulls need to pick on their own species
About time.
Hopefully it will deter people from buying pits.
"No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep."
"From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide)."
Please define "pits". Being that a "pit bull" doesn't actually exist, I'd love to hear your answer.
2007 Fatalities
1. Texas (January): 10 y.o. girl
2. Missouri (January): 69 y.o. women
3. Virginia (January): 6 y.o. boy
4. Tennessee (January): 18 m.o girl
5. Georgia (February): 2 y.o. girl
6. Texas (March): 50 y.o. women
7. Texas (March): 2 y.o. girl
8. South Carolina (April): toddler
9. Texas (May): 90 y.o. man
You Texans need to learn how to control your dogs.
you californians need to learn how to trim and water your damn forests.
TSA, brother, I guess we each know where the other stands on this. I can't debate it anymore.
My best friend's son was attacked by my neighbor's dog last weekend when he was trying to scoot the dog over on the couch so he could sit down. He got 10 s ches in his face to sew the flaps back onto his scalp, and one on his eyelid ... and that was a dog they played with all of the time and never showed any kind of aggression. That dog was a German Shephard-ish mutt, I believe.
Off-topic ... why the can't you take someone else's child to the emergency room if they need immediate help and you can't get a hold of their parent's? That pretty much blew me away.
All German Shepardish Mutts should be euthanized.
At least that kid lived.
Stupid liability issues - I spent a lot of time working in ERs this year and was incredibly annoyed by that. It's because no one but the parent can sign consent forms for treatment, and is something unfortunate happened during treatment then the hospital would be the only ones to blame and they want to cover their asses. I've heard there are concerns about drug allergies as well that only parents may know about.
I've seen consent to be treated in an ER given by phone before - it required the person on the other line to repeat their consent two extra times to witnesses, but it was for an incapacitated adult, not a child.
AT least that dog was properly identified.
German Shepardish is my favorite breed.
I really wish they'd include pictures with every attack of these so called "pits" so that the dog could be properly identified.
No offense to the AP, but here's a story with a little more info including more on that new law.
------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...k.3565d97.html
Boy, 6, dies after pit bull mauling
Pleasant Grove: Criminal charges not filed so far; animal was family pet
11:06 PM CDT on Friday, August 31, 2007
By HOLLY YAN / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
A 6-year-old boy was mauled to death by a pit bull Friday evening in a Pleasant Grove neighborhood.
Dallas police Sgt. Gil Cerda said that Scott Warren was inside his home when the family's 1-year-old dog attacked at about 6 p.m. on the 1900 block of Prichard Lane. Scott died while en route to Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas.
"The mother was apparently outside," Sgt. Cerda said. "When she came in, she saw the dog mauling the child."
Sgt. Cerda said that the mother was cooperating with authorities and that no criminal charges had been filed Friday night.
The attack came only a day before the start of a new Texas law that allows felony charges to be filed against the owner of a dog that kills or seriously injures someone. The law, one of the stiffest in the nation, can mean prison sentences for owners found to be negligent or who have dogs known to be dangerous.
Named Lillian's Law, the legislation was sparked by the 2005 fatal mauling of 76-year-old Lillian Stiles by six pit bull-Rottweiler mixes in Central Texas. A pit bull was also responsible for killing a 10-year-old girl in San Antonio earlier this year.
The pit bull responsible for Friday's attack was taken away from the house by Dallas animal control officers. Neighbors said that Scott's family had moved in only about four months ago, but that their dogs had already become a nuisance.
One neighbor, Rudy Lopez, said he saw a woman beating one of the dogs a few weeks ago with a shovel after it was involved in a fight with another dog. Another, Anthony Mack, said that he couldn't understand why a child would be left inside with one of the animals.
Staff writer Paul Meyer contributed to this report.
ABOUT THE NEW LAW
Under Lillian's Law, which was enacted this year and goes into effect today, the owner of a dangerous dog may face felony charges in one of two ways:
• A dog's unprovoked attack away from its owner's property kills someone, permanently disfigures a person or destroys or impairs a body part or organ. A previous attack by the dog isn't required, but prosecutors must prove the owner was criminally negligent in failing to secure the animal – not heeding a "substantial and unjustifiable risk."
• The owner knows the dog has previously injured someone or been deemed dangerous by authorities, and the dog makes an unprovoked attack outside its enclosure causing death or injury requiring hospitalization.
In either situation, the offense is a third-degree felony with punishment of two to 10 years in prison. In the case of a death, the charge is a second-degree felony, punishable by two to 20 years in prison.
You make a good point. Reading the DMN's story, it seems as though the animal control officials brought in are public employees, which would make their reports and any photos (which I would assume they take?) a matter of public record.
A question for UTSA's finest: Isn't murder the killing of a human by another human?
I'm all for killing dogs that attack and punishing the owners of these dogs, but at least get the breed correct. "pit bulls" don't even exist, and how broad of a term is "pit bull type".
I don't have a Webster's New World College Dictionary lying around, but here's the AP's entry on animals.
TSA, does it not exist because it's not recognized by AKC or because they weren't consistent in creating the breed? It's fairly obvious to me when I see a pitbull and there are a ton of folks breeding and selling dogs as pitbulls. Is that all false advertising on the part of the breeders?
Just curious. I'm not picking a fight...enlighten me.
pit bulls are just evening the score. what about all those bas kids who are beating up/using as pinatas/decapatating poor defenseless dogs?
It shouldn't be, but that was funny.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)