Pit bull fact

Like the terms freak accident and tragic accident used by pit bull owners to deny responsibility after a violent or deadly attack, “unfortunate accident” was recently voiced by Adam Pollack, who runs a pit bull breeding operation from his home, after his three leashed pit bulls attacked a 9-year old boy. The attack occurred as the boy and his mother, Jessyca Petell, were walking into the entrance of a multi-family home in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Petell said when her son opened the door, “the dogs burst out, dragging him down the steps and continuing a ‘violent, relentless and ruthless’ attack.” The dogs inflicted 35 puncture wounds and a 3-by-3 inch section of the boy’s scalp was torn off.

Read full post

Right on the eve of Best Friends Animal Society celebrating Ohio’s removal of the statewide pit bull law. I don’t think the parents of this deceased child will attend.

Lucas County Coroner Dr. Cynthia Beisser said Friday that the baby died from blunt force injury to the head. Beisser said it was consistent with a “dog biting down on the head.” Apparently the baby’s mother and grandmother were just a few feet away when the attack occurred. The offending dog remains in custody while the investigation continues. Dog Warden Julie Shellhammer confirmed that the dog was a male pit bull-mix about 4 years old. - DogsBite.org

there has been another fatal pit bull mauling in the State of New Mexico in less than one week. At the time of the incident, the child was in the backyard of her grandparent’s home. The girl’s 52-year old grandmother was accidentally shot in the leg after one neighbor intervened with a firearm to stop the pit bull attacking the girl. Both victims were transported to El Paso hospital. The child did not survive the injuries inflicted by the pet pit bull. - DogsBite.org

Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable After an Attack

Baltimore, MD - In January, DogsBite.org announced our filing of an amicus brief in a landmark Maryland appeals case, Tracey v. Solesky, in hopes of expanding more liability out to landlords when a tenant’s pit bull attacks. The case involves the parents of a young boy seeking damages for injuries inflicted by a pit bull owned by a landlord’s tenant. Also at issue is the “dangerousness” of pit bulls being “well-recognized,” as determined in the 1998 case, Matthews v. Amberwood.

In Matthews, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in a 4-3 vote that the landlord could have taken steps to abate the danger of a pit bull kept by a tenant when the landlord knew of the dog’s presence and was aware of the dog’s dangerousness. It was our hope that the Solesky opinion would expand Matthews further. On April 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals, in another 4-3 vote, did expand it and with great clarity by attaching strict liability when a pit bull or pit bull-cross attacks.

It appears the Court has no mercy left for owners of pit bulls (and their landlords) when these dogs horribly maul human beings. The footnote mentioned in the blog post is  classic and offers a big “in your face” to all bleeding pit bull lovers. The Court wrote:

Some are similar to the arguments made in the appellant or amicus’ briefs filed in the present case by supporters of pit bulls. In light of Maryland’s situation, we find those particular arguments unpersuasive. We have fully reviewed and considered all the briefs. We recognize the problems that exist when breed specific legislation is proposed - which is opposed by pit bull breeders, owners and fanciers. Such opposition has been present for many years. Our opinion in the present case does not ban pit bulls, but puts a greater responsibility for vicious dogs where pit bull advocates have long argued it should be - with the owners and others who have the power of control over such dogs. Our opinion imposes greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls.”

For the families of Ayla and Destiny, pit bulls are a dangerous breed that warrant stiff regulations by communities. The dogs should be licensed, leashed and monitored, they said, and their owners should carry liability insurance to cover hospital bills and, in the case of Destiny, funerals. In neither case were the dog owners charged or held financially liable. “Right now, her death is in vain and this is all that’s left,” said Cathy Blackwell, tearing up as she gestured to the grave of her granddaughter. “I just wish people would open their eyes.” - Djournal.com

A Satsop-area woman who was mauled by her family’s two pit bulls told KIRO 7 on Wednesday that she was fighting for her survival during the attack. It happened Monday. Gloria Boswell (video), 82, said the dogs attacked suddenly while she was picking up a pillow she knocked off her couch … If you want to survive, you’re going to have to fight,” she said. “And I wasn’t about to give up my home and my life just because a pillow fell off a couch.” - Kiro News

Pit bulls are UNPREDICTABLE.

Should make a nice addition to Pit Bull Triggers.

Week of Escalating Violent Attacks by Rescued and Adopted Pit Bulls

This 18-year old woman, who was left with no feeling in her right arm and the inability to move one of her fingers, was most likely an avid supporter of the breed. An internal study done at DogsBite.org showed that of the pit bull owners who send in email, 75% are females between the ages of 18 to 24. It’s an age group highly susceptible to buying into the 30-year old garbage perpetuated by local and national animal advocacy groups and pit bull breeders and owners. - DogsBite.org

Even fatal dog bite statistics reflect this horror. More and more young mothers are getting their children knocked off by their own “pet” pit bulls — rescued, adopted or otherwise. Point being, their kid is killed despite being a “loving owner” of their pit bull.