Discussion for article #236557
Okay. Doesnât make sense. Was he even supposed to be feeding the dogs?
Not with his body parts.
1 Like
How many dogs did Felton have? Geezuz
Cue the apologists saying pit bulls are no more dangerous than poodles.
1 Like
Ask me how many times I heard that as I steered my gold retriever away from one?
2 Likes
Obviously the plaintiff here has suffered horribly and is entitled to damages.
But $100 million?
The judge says he came up with that number to send a message. In my opinion an over-the-top number like that is a huge distraction from any message he wanted to send.
Cue the ignoramuses who fail to understand that dogs and their behavior are a direct result of the humans who care (or rather donât care) for them, not from any innate behavior traits of the breed.
Cue the violent breed apologists who donât realize that although all dogs are predators, some breeds are more dangerous than others. How many people end up losing limbs to Chihuahua attacks?
http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html
2 Likes
Iâm curious what value you would place upon your left arm and left legâhow much are they worth to you? $1Million? $10Million? $500? Whatâs your price, were your leg and your arm lost to a pack of dogs?
How much value to I place on my arms and legs? Beyond measure! By that standard $100 million is pitifully small. It should have been $100 billion! No, $100 TRILLION!
But I disagree with that standard. If it were me I would expect only that all medical bills and and lost wages (up to a certain point) be paid. Not because I wouldnât deserve more, but because in a real world that is the best resolution possible. I would expect the plaintiff to pay to restore as much of my former health and abilities as is feasible, but no more. Itâs futile and ridiculous to expect even a guilty party to replace the irreplaceable or to spend the rest of their lives throwing money at the defendant.
Ha ha, âviolent breedâ is possibly the most ignorant thing Iâve read today. By that measure anything larger than a Chihuahua is a âviolent breedâ due to their size, and potential damage they could cause with that size. I think Iâll trust the American Veterinary Medical Associationâs word over âdog obedience training onlineâ, who doesnât even link to a credible source or take into account all the other factors in dog related incidents, including reporting bioas and regional popularity of a [articular breed: https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx?PF=1
If only the cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities are considered, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. This may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victimâs community, reporting biases, misidentification, and the dogâs treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to âsled dogsâ and Siberian Huskies, presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds.
and:
Owners of dogs that are identified by the community as âpit bull typeâ may experience a strong breed stigma, however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a âbreedâ encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to be unreliable. As discussed witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a dog that bites is a âpit bullâ.
The incidence of âpit bull-typeâ dogsâ involvement in severe or fatal attacks may be associated with prevalence of at-risk dogs in neighborhoods with lots of young children. Owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts, so apparent âbreed correlationsâ may be due to patterns in owner behavior.
and finally:
Conclusion
Dogs who bite can seriously injure or kill people. It is natural for those affected to seek to address what they perceive to be the immediate cause, and it is easy to blame breed. However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: âThe substantial within-breed variationâŚsuggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dogâs propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.â Factors relating to the individual animal (eg, training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) have been shown to be more predictive of dogs bites than has breed. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time,geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials.
Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, âpit bull-typeâ dogs. Accordingly, targeting this breed or any another as a basis for dog bite prevention is unfounded. As stated by the National Animal Control Association: âDangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.â
It is easy to understand why you might have a bias against pit bulls due to the currently fashionable media reporting on them, but the facts do not support your point of view.
You apparently do not read your own postsâŚand I apparently have lanced your boil (fanatical violent dog breed apologists tend to be like that). Got any more hysterical denial to parade around?
Your ad hominem comments only show every one else how youâve run out of logical arguments ( not that you had any to begin with) and refuse to acknowledge actual science done in the service of analyzing dog behavior. Iâve shown you the facts, but you know, horse to water.
Still spewing bs? You seem to like pretending that I have to convince you of something before it becomes valid, while your comments show a clear bias that takes on the air of belief. Take your lumps like a man instead of whining. Your argument is purely your personal fantasy, while life experience in real time, in addition to published data, proves to me that you are only trying to justify your belief. And since Iâm not a believer, you canât handle it and freak out, as your post demonstrates to everyone. Typical of the faithful, regardless of dogma.
Chihuahuas and other small dogs do often bite people at high rates, maybe even higher than pit bulls if you just look at number of bite incidents. But thatâs a very small part of the story. A bite from a chihuahua is not likely to cause serious damage unless it gets seriously infected, and a 5-pound dog can be incapacitated with a good kick to the head. If youâre attacked by three 40-pound pit bulls, like a 70 year old friend of mine was, youâll be lucky to get out alive.
1 Like
Wow youâre like watching pundits FOX, wherein they accuse everyone else of doing exactly what they and their conservative cronies are guilty of. Youâre the only one freaking out here, and itâs perfectly childish. All my info is well sourced, no belief involved, just hard data and controlled studies (havenât read it yet I imagine, again horse to water). You are the one living in a fantasy. Your personal experience matter bupkis, and âpublished dataâ you laughably reference but which you have not linked to or cited is also childish on your part. The only thing youâre not a believer of, apparently, is science - and I can handle it just fine, just as Iâve handled all your feeble attempts to justify your baseless bias against certain dog breeds.
Yes, the larger the animal the more dangerous it is when attacking a person. That was never a point I was trying to make or refute. Any large dog breed has the potential to do harm if treated poorly or approached by someone unfamiliar with the animal. Any large animal of any kind is potentially dangerous. My point, and which studies prove, is that dog breed is a poor indicator of a potential attack, and that many factors are involved including the most important one, the human owner of the dog. Pit Bull bias has been cultivated by the media, for a variety of reasons but mostly laziness I think because itâs an easy sell now. And just because Iâm here defending the breed against bias doesnât mean I would say that you shouldnât exercise caution around a bully breed you donât know, but I would say that about ANY dog you donât know. Nor would I recommend that just any family adopt a rescue Pit Bull with an unknown history. My point was only that breed is a poor indicator of aggression, no dogâs instincts lend it towards conflict,they want to avoid injury/death just as much as any animal does. Pit Bull bias is media-driven and just plain silly. Any breed raised well from puppy-hood has the potential to be well socialized and a lifelong friend to people.
Your denial is entertaining, to a point.
Your trolling is weak.