Family pet kills Dallas boy..

RioBravoReptiles · #1 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 12:27 PM

Aug. 31, 2007, 11:06PM
Associated Press
......
DALLAS — 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.

stalk · #2 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 12:38 PM

Sigh. This is why you don't leave dogs with children unsupervised, pit bulls or chihuahas.

RioBravoReptiles · #3 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 12:55 PM

I think that a 6 year-old and a 13 year old should not have to be supervised in their own home when playing with a family pet.
.
An infant or a toddler certainly, maybe a 4-5 year old? You wouldn't leave them alone with the dog. Or would you?
.
Poll.. What does everybody think? At what age should children be ok to play at home unsupervised with the familiy's dog?
.
Thanks.

WVW · #4 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 02:29 PM

well, again it does depend on the dog. you never hear of a golden retriever "mauling" a person, and a chihuaha is strait up too small to. but a rotti or pit or doberman, you would wanna wait til the child was old enough to have the knowledge and wisdom as to how to stop an attacking dog. IMO, size and strenth arent that big of factors, because if he knew how to, a 5yo could stop a dog. So I say its all about education.

reptilicus81 · #5 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 02:55 PM

There is always more to the story, and we may never know the whole story with this case!

*This dog was adopted by the family at four weeks old....there is a problem right there! Dogs who are not with their mother for long enough often develop personality issues...which the neighbors complained that the four dogs living at this residence were a nuisance...hmmm. The dog was only one year old, which is about the time that aggressive behavior begins. Not to mention neighbors told the newspaper the Warrens had moved in only a few months ago and they had already seen Scott's mom beating one of their dogs with a shovel after it had gotten into a fight with another dog.
*Also, not to sound insensitive, but if my dog was attacking my child, it would not take ten minutes to pull the dog off. I love my dogs, but would lo!ve my kids more...and would grab a knife, or whatever to stop the dog!

Just my two cents!

piscivorus · #6 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 03:07 PM

For starters, I would like to know whether or not this dog was actually a Pit Bull. More often than not, these stories mislabel dogs and any bulldog-type breed is just called a Pit Bull for the sensationalism of it. Pit Bulls are some of the most human friendly dogs around and usually don't make great guard dogs because of it. They were bred to be this way on purpose, that way during fights with humans in the pits, they could still be pulled off, controlled, etc.

Really sad though. I'm not sure how I feel about making the owner a criminal when their dog attacks. Simple regulation would prove far more useful. When owners are bad owners (and they are OWNERS, people who own dogs), they should be punished because of that OR they simply need to make everything fair game and leave them alone. This half-regulation that blames the dogs for everything is obviously getting nowhere. Then they blame the owner for everything, which is also wrong. IMO, if the jurisdiction has no problem with the owner's tactics (which is implied by him owning the dog/s to start with) then they can't blame him when the dog attacks, they can only blame the dog.

When are we gonna start blaming parents and putting them in jail when their 14 year olds rob convenience stores? That's the next step.

If the responsible would just always be held accountable...................

RioBravoReptiles · #7 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 03:44 PM

Cause of injury, Emergency room incidents annually
Baseball/softball 404,364
Dog bites 333,687
Playground accidents 268,810
All-terrain vehicles, mopeds, etc. 125,136
Volleyball 97,523
Inline skating 75,994
Horseback riding 71,162
Baby walkers 28,000
Skateboards 25,486
.
Interesting stats. Especially since Snakes and other Reptiles are not even on the list.
.
I get the point that it's the owners who are ultimately responsible, and I agree 100%. And there is very good data showing that Pit bull dogs (and Rottweilers, the other big killers of kids) are not statistically responsible for any more dog bites than other dog breeds.
.
What is also statictically undeniable is that Pit bull dogs and crossbreed Pit bull dogs and Rottweilers are the breeds overwhelmingly involved in the serious mauling and deaths of people.. moreso than any other breeds or crossbreeds of dogs. That these dogs are shown to be more dangerous has been found in every study over many years by government and NGOs alike.
.
I personally don't find it a plausible excuse for Pit Bull dogs or crossed Pits to say that the animal involved may not have been 100% Pit Bull.. Ok, then the 30% Dacshund in the mix is the killer gene? The owners and admirers of Dacshund's would disagree, I'm betting.
.
These types of threads are not about trashing Pit bull dogs or their owners. It's the same as when certain types of snakes are shown to be more inclined to bite or be less tame.. or when keeping venomous is discussed. People need to know.
.
Be safe.

piscivorus · #8 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 04:05 PM

Actually, Pit Bulls are responsible for a lower percentage of bites than about 100 other breeds. There are more Pit Bulls/Pit Bull mixes in homes in the USA than any other breed/cross-breed. They not only bite less often, they bite FAR less often. They're also misidentified more often than any other type of dog. If you take an American Bulldog/Boxer mix, most would say it was a Pit Bull and it's not. Pit Bulls were mutts as recently as last century. They ARE a mix of breeds themselves, as are ALL dogs. Most "bully breeds" (bulldog-like breeds) are derivatives of the same types of animals, just in different amounts.

That should be enough to squash the "killer gene" theory.

Most bites are from small dogs and they bite a higher percentage of the time than the medium and large breeds combined. If a killer gene must exist, then it probably lies within the DNA strand of these types of dogs. They're also the breeds with the most health problems and genetic defects (especially the dogs without true snouts, i.e., pugs, pekingnese, etc)

I have had many Pit Bulls and Rottweilers and never had a problem. We had a Rottweiler that did not like small children and was obviously creeped out by them (he was 7 before he ever saw a small child) so he was always monitored when around kids. He was a great dog and lived over 10 years without incident, but it was OUR responsibility to keep an incident from happening and we did so because we loved both the dog and the child. It's no different than letting a child play with a gun or not; you just don't do it. If a household has kids and any of the dogs has acted oddly around them, then the dogs should be re-homed.

There is no "killer gene" and most studies about bites/maulings/fatalities are full of misidentification. The last time i checked, the stats were provided mostly by the media. We know how that can turn out.

As for whether or not it's relevant whether the dog was a Pit Bull or a Pit Bull mix, well, since there are other, more pure breeds biting people (they just do it with smaller, weaker jaws, smaller frames, etc), i think it's very relevant. Not sure about the most recent stats, but Dalmations bit more people than any other breed for many years even though they are not one of the most popular breeds. If you had 3 dogs (Pit Bull, Pit Bull/Dalmation mix, Dalmation) and the mix and Dalmation bit someone, the media would blame the "Pit Bull" and maybe or maybe not mention the Dalmation bite.

I've seen nothing that indicates Pit Bulls are a dangerous breed due to genetic defects. The average Pit Bull is around 45-50lbs too, so they're a medium sized dog. A Saint Bernard is more dangerous due to sheer size. It's like the venomous vs. large boid debate about what is more dangerous.

RioBravoReptiles · #9 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 04:19 PM

You are right (and I tried to say it in my post too), Pit bulls do not bite more than other breeds. They do kill more people. Mostly kids.
.
Education is the big picture.. that includes not denying that your Pit Bull or Rottweiler (or maybe mixed-breed of same) is more capable and likely of seriously injuring and killing a person than other breeds.. and the people most at risk are our kids and neighbors. Statistics clearly show the majority of serious attacks and deaths involve a family pet or one known to the victim.
.
Have a good one.

Ursa Minor · #10 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartboas

well, again it does depend on the dog. you never hear of a golden retriever "mauling" a person, and a chihuaha is strait up too small to. but a rotti or pit or doberman, you would wanna wait til the child was old enough to have the knowledge and wisdom as to how to stop an attacking dog. IMO, size and strenth arent that big of factors, because if he knew how to, a 5yo could stop a dog. So I say its all about education.

Actually I beg to differ on the Golden Retriever...I work in Fire/EMS and we just had a Goldie attack and seriously injure a 22 month old boy. That was over a month ago and the child is still in critical condition. The father took the 8 year old dog out back and killed it while we were there.

It doesn't matter what breed your dealing with! A dog, any dog, can either attack for no reason or could be startled and just defend itself with a bite.

As for the poll- I would never leave my kids, niece/nephew, godson, or any other child unsupervised period. It's not a matter of leaving the child alone with the dog. They should not be left alone period! And I don't believe a 13 year old should have been left to watch a 5 year old.

But it doesn't matter, the news will make a big deal about it. And Pitt Bulls are going to look more aggressive and violent. I love my Amstaff, and I can't imagine him being violent to anything but cats (he chases them). But I wouldn't leave my kids with them alone. The fact is that there's so many more things a kid could get hurt on or with in my house than my dog, and my dogs can't do anything to protect them from it.

Oh, and one more thing...people should do their homework on a breed before they buy! Pitt Bulls are a needy breed. They crave constant attention, require lots of activity, and strive to please thier owner.

X-Factor · #11 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 04:33 PM

I think that pits/rots are the easiest to mistreat and undertrain, making them more prone to "turn."

MAG_Pythons · #12 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 05:08 PM

i trust my GSD and Rottie with anyone and any kid ... they can hang all over them without a problem. and even my cousin's pitts would be fine with kids, they are 4 and very , very gentle

that being said, i wouldn't leave a small child alone ANYWHERE

Ranger · #13 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piscivorus

Actually, Pit Bulls are responsible for a lower percentage of bites than about 100 other breeds.

That is patently false. Show citation, please.

Red-Tailed_mustang · #14 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartboas

well, again it does depend on the dog. you never hear of a golden retriever "mauling" a person, and a chihuaha is strait up too small to. but a rotti or pit or doberman, you would wanna wait til the child was old enough to have the knowledge and wisdom as to how to stop an attacking dog. IMO, size and strenth arent that big of factors, because if he knew how to, a 5yo could stop a dog. So I say its all about education.

You don't hear about it but it does happen. It isn't good media coverage if a golden retriever or a dalmation mauls someone.

Red-Tailed_mustang · #15 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:10 PM

If you want more info go here this is the American Temperament Test Society website http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

WVW · #16 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red-Tailed_mustang

You don't hear about it but it does happen. It isn't good media coverage if a golden retriever or a dalmation mauls someone.

where is golden retriever on that list? and also I wasnt being literal.

as it was said above by others, and I totally agree, pits dont attack or bite most often, but they are the most dangerous in that when they do, they can do serious harm quickly. its kinda like if GTP's bite way more often than any other snake, but its the burms that take the heat cause when they bite or "attack" if thats the word you wanna use, it would be far more dangerous, due to they're size and incredible strength.

piscivorus · #17 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranger

That is patently false. Show citation, please.

ATTS - American Temperament Test Society, Inc. - ATTS Breed Statistics

These stats list breeds and their statistics related to likelihood to "lose their cool" basically. It has been around for 30 years and is as solid as any mental evaluation around for humans or animals (whatever that's worth).

The Pit Bull had an 84.1% which is 3% above what is average, so that means the Pit Bull, according to this widely accepted test, is one of the safer, more predictable breeds. It's also one of the more heavily tested breeds which would lead one to believe the stats are more concrete on the subject.

The stats you'd probably wanna see to "prove it" are not something I can legally post here. I'm not paying $900 to be able to do so either. On top of that, you could easily find an anti-Pit Bull set of stats which would "disprove" anything I post.

If you believe that these stats are accurate, that a Pit Bull is rarely misidentified (along with other breeds), etc, then your mind is already made up. Being a "snake person", you shouldn't think that way though, since it's proven time and time again that a biased media will make anything fact.

The link i posted is from late 2006 as well. People make their minds up based on information and experience (nowadays, it's mostly based on second-hand info). I have plenty of experience with these animals (and others), I understand that stats are worth only so much, and I understand that Pit Bulls are the most misidentified breeds when it comes to "bites". Also, Pit Bulls are NOT recognized as a breed by the AKC (they ARE recognized by the CKC) therefore they fall into the "mutt" category. The American Staffordshire Terrier IS a breed the AKC recognizes, but they are NOT Pit Bulls and breeding with them is considered interbreeding.

Red-Tailed_mustang · #18 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:21 PM

They were bred for fighting and humans would stay in the pit with them the whole time. If they bit a human they were culled off. This breed of dog the Pit Bull was once known as the nursery dog in this country! They love and protect their owners if they are taught right. Also several dogs are grouped up into this name pit bull The American Staffordshire terrier, The Staffordshire Terrier, and the Bull Terrier and many more crosses and muts when the great media in this country does a story on them. If you want to learn any more about this breed just look them up. PS there is no breed called Pit Bull this is just a name given to a group of dogs.

mpgt · #19 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:21 PM

Another sad story, involving real people, real tragedy and an animal which in the proper care would probably have given his own life to defend that little boy. I hope one day, we (as a society) learn how to predict and prevent every such occurrence. It's not likely though because there are so many variables involved. Those new laws in TX sound like a scare tactic. Without it, I think they could still face a Negligent Homicide charge...or a number of other criminal offenses, and face the same penalties. You just have to prove negligence led to his death. A jury could decide that even without the new legislation.

It's a shame that such a good (and yes, powerful) dog is so readily available and enjoys such popularity at the moment. I'm not an authority, but I imagine almost every such incident can be attributed to human error.

mpgt · #20 (**permalink**) 09-02-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piscivorus

ATTS - American Temperament Test Society, Inc. - ATTS Breed Statistics
These stats list breeds and their statistics related to likelihood to "lose their cool" basically. It has been around for 30 years and is as solid as any mental evaluation around for humans or animals (whatever that's worth).
The Pit Bull had an 84.1% which is 3% above what is average, so that means the Pit Bull, according to this widely accepted test, is one of the safer, more predictable breeds. It's also one of the more heavily tested breeds which would lead one to believe the stats are more concrete on the subject...

Sadly, all bets are off though, if an animal is subjected to neglect, abuse or other horrible conditions they frequently face (including...no discipline/no "pack leader").

Advertisement