Dog shot in city park

[Wildscar]

All it takes is one bad day. As someone stated before you can find these stories online all day long. This one was not even about a pit bull and was the family dog. Go figure.

Family Dog Attacks, Kills Woman

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/7658043/detai ... w&psp=news

NBC 5 has learned that a woman in Scurry, Texas, died because of a dog attack.

The attack occurred about 6 p.m. Thursday in the in Kaufman County town. According to witnesses, David Mayfield heard two women screaming from the home next door.

He found the family's pet dog attacking the women even though the animal was chained to a porch.

Mayfield, Dorothy Mayfield and another women were injured by the attack and transported to Parkland Hospital In Dallas.

Dorothy Mayfield died from wounds she suffered during the attack. David Mayfield was treated and later released. The other woman remains in the hospital.

According to family members, the dog -- a Great Dane named Brutus -- was previously well behaved. They said the dog snapped for an unknown reason.
Holly Henderson, the daughter of the hospitalized victim, called the attack an accident.

"It's a freak thing. It's bizarre," she said. "This doesn't happen every day. Not everybody's dog does this. This doesn't normally happen. I mean, it's just a very weird situation. It's almost like a nightmare."

Brutus was euthanized, and his remains will be tested for rabies by state veterinary examiners

[mr.72]

I have submitted my "guess/suspicion" based on deductive reasoning (perhaps flawed) and a general attitude concerning pit-bulls as a breed. The same disdain for them is reflected among most of those posting here.

I will be quite open about it. The fact that it is a pit bull is a perfectly valid reason to suspect it may be prone to aggression, even if it has had no history of aggression.

Let me put it differently. If you saw a mountain lion in the same circumstances, you would be likely to shoot it. You do so because of the breed of animal. Maybe the mountain lion is tame! Maybe it's someone's beloved pet! But many believe that mountain lions, along with many wild animals, can never be truly tamed. Even if they behave like a regular pet all the time, there is always the potential that instinct is going to take over and the animal is going to attack without apparent provocation besides instinct.

You hear about it often from people who have a pet python who kills or eats the family pet or a baby in the house, or with other tamed exotic animals that people keep as pets like big cats or wolves.

So the same thing is believed by many to be true of pit bulls. Obviously Flint, you don't subscribe to this belief.

BTW pit bulls are not the only breed of dog known for wild-animal-like "unprovoked" attacks.

[srothstein]

Wow, I missed one day in the forum and end up catching up on four pages of posts for one thread. I am really surprised at some of the attitudes also.

I think the officer did the right thing in shooting, and that I would say that if it was a CHL, a person unlawfully carrying, or an LEO. He saw a dog approaching his kids and felt threatened. He stopped the perceived attack with no people being injured.

The elements to be considered on this are if the officer could reasonably feel threatened. In this, I have to say yes. Some of you mention the breed of dog as a contributing factor. It may or may not have been. I have always said that any dog can and will bite. If it has teeth it will bite. I don't care if it is a shephard, doberman, pit bull, poodle, beagle, or chihuahua, if it has teeth it will bite. My 21 year old daughter is still carrying scars from when her own dog bit her. I know lots of officers who have been bitten by their own dogs. I had to get rid of an Alaskan Malemute once when it bit a neighbor child (who had fed it and played with it in hte past) and malemutes have friendliness written right into the sandards by which the breed is judged.

Second, was the threat. The dog was off leash and approached the children. The only people who get to make a determination of threat is the children and the shooter. If the children are afraid of dogs (my youngest son is), then their reaction will also contribute to make the dog seem to be attacking. Their fear may even cause the dog to attack when it would not otherwise have done so. There are a lot of character witnesses for the dogs, but not one who saw the confrontation. The best is one who says she saw it and the dog was not that close, but the physical evidence (blood stains) show otherwise. The owner says the dog had turned towards her but, again, the physical evidence says otherwise (shot in the front of the head). This all makes it seem to me like the officer is probably the closest to relaying facts and is definitely telling the truth as he saw it.

Third was the weapon choice. The officer did not have OC spray on him. I find this to be normal and the idea that the officer should have had more to be abnormal. The officer was off duty. He wears a big heavy duty belt to carry things like his radio, handcuffs, OC spray, and pistol when on duty and I know of no officer that wears such a belt off duty. And since his gear is not coming off that belt very easily, it is normal for the officer to only carry his weapon when off duty. I know some of you carry OC also, but I would be willing to bet (if it could be verified) that it is a very small percentage of the CHL's in this state who also carry OC.

I think the officer did things as well as he could in this case.

Now, I am concerned about comments from the paper designed to instill fear. The paper should report the facts and not editorialize. I am also concerned about the Cheif's attitude toward guns and this use. Evertime I hear someone blame it on the legislature and say he just enforces the laws not makes them, I shudder. This is a bad attitude for the cops to have and only causes problems. It is basically saying he is a robot and just does whatever the law says. It may be time to fire or retire him and get cops in there that can think for themselves. They need to be able to explain to people what the law is and how to change it. They also need to explain to the people why they took the action they did (or did not. Officer discretion is alive and well in 99.99% of the cases in Texas.

[KD5NRH]

I will be quite open about it. The fact that it is a pit bull is a perfectly valid reason to suspect it may be prone to aggression, even if it has had no history of aggression.

Even if it weren't, the fact remains that they are predators and instinctively play in ways that can be very dangerous to children. I've been torn up pretty badly by kittens that would fit in my shirt pocket, and they certainly had no ill intent, but they have lots of sharp bits and use them in play until that is trained completely out of them.

As promised, here is a photo of the area:

As you can see, it's not a great place to be approached, especially with the dog coming up from the water. There is a gate in that fence well out of frame to the right, but it's too far away for kids to have any chance of outrunning a dog to get to it, and if the dog made it in too, they'd be corralled with it.

Other area residents' comments were as incomprehensible as many in the paper.



This nesting duck was about 15-20 yards from where the dogs were claimed to be "innocently playing."
[url=ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/kd5nrh/2763858616/][/url]

[flintknapper]

I will be quite open about it. The fact that it is a pit bull is a perfectly valid reason to suspect it may be prone to aggression, even if it has had no history of aggression.

So in essence you are saying that pit-bulls as a breed are people aggressive (everyone of them) and that they are basically ticking timebombs?

Let me put it differently. If you saw a mountain lion in the same circumstances, you would be likely to shoot it. You do so because of the breed of animal. Maybe the mountain lion is tame! Maybe it's someone's beloved pet! But many believe that mountain lions, along with many wild animals, can never be truly tamed. Even if they behave like a regular pet all the time, there is always the potential that instinct is going to take over and the animal is going to attack without apparent provocation besides instinct.

Permit me to suggest that this may not be the very best analogy (if that was your intent). Mountain Lions are wild predators that depend upon their hunting skills for their very existence. If this were true of Pit-Bulls (or other dogs) there would hardly be any need to feed them, water them, or try to keep them in a domestic environment. But lets entertain the Mountain Lion thought.... just for sake of argument. There are people who will not hesitate to kill every snake they encounter, these same folks would no doubt kill the Mountain Lion. Occasionally, a black bear, a deer, a moose, a coyote, bobcat, etc....will wander into town someplace in the USA. All of these animals are known to be a potential threat to man under certain conditions. So using your logic, they should all be shot on sight just because of what they are! No consideration should be given to "what they are doing...or if they truly pose a threat".

Suppose the officer held that same view...(a pit-bull=danger). Is it possible that this myopic view of things could spill over into his job? Maybe all folks of "color" should be immediately suspected, a disproportionate number of them are involved in crimes in some cities. You see where this is going?

You hear about it often from people who have a pet python who kills or eats the family pet or a baby in the house, or with other tamed exotic animals that people keep as pets like big cats or wolves.

This is basically the more of the same. Truly wild animals vs. domesticated animals is not entirely the same thing.

So the same thing is believed by many to be true of pit bulls.

Many folks thought the world was flat at one time. My question all along has been (is it reasonable). I can point you to 11 million illegal aliens in this coutry, I'm sure they are O.K. with it, but sheer numbers of people believing something is alright doesn't make it so.

Obviously Flint, you don't subscribe to this belief.

I certainly do not, and I think it is intellectually dishonest to demonize an entire breed of dog because some of them bite.

BTW pit bulls are not the only breed of dog known for wild-animal-like "unprovoked" attacks.

I don't believe that pit-bulls are correctly "known" for this either. They actually have a better temperament rating than a lot of other dogs that are held in high regard.

As for this shooting, all that matters in the end... is that the person felt as if his children were in eminent danger and took action to resolve that. If he was right then I support him whole heartedly. If he was not....then I hope everyone comes out of it unscathed the next time it happens. I think everyone in that setting was fortunate. It could have turned out more like the officers that thought it was a good idea to shoot the snake out of the tree (we all remember that one).

It is my opinion that any threat from a large dog is to be taken seriously....but not to make any hasty decisions to shoot based solely on breed. The appropriate thing to do is to assess the situation based on what the animal is actually doing, otherwise we will have to kill every untethered dog that we come across because they ALL have the "potential" to do harm.

[Venus Pax]

It is my opinion that any threat from a large dog is to be taken seriously....but not to make any hasty decisions to shoot based solely on breed.

Flint, that is the whole issue with this entire thread... not all of us are convinced either way regarding the incident posted.

[mr.72]

So in essence you are saying that pit-bulls as a breed are people aggressive (everyone of them) and that they are basically ticking timebombs?

No I didn't say that at all. But I do honestly believe that *some* of them are and therefore some behavior that may be normal and non-hostile in, say, a collie, might be reasonably interpreted to be more potentially hostile from a breed like a pit bull.

Permit me to suggest that this may not be the very best analogy (if that was your intent). Mountain Lions are wild predators that depend upon their hunting skills for their very existence.

On the contrary this is precisely the analogy I am making and you have emphasized the point perfectly.

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many (who you say are wrong, so you disagree) that the very same type of aggressive or "wild" instinct that you find with a big cat is present in some breeds of dogs. It's not like dogs are naturally herbivores. They are also predators and apex predators in most environments where they would be wild. They have a similar instinct to any other predator. My house cats that are sitting right here with me have the same kind of instinct as well, although they are far less dangerous to humans because they are not nearly big enough to be a serious threat. However hundreds of generations of these felines born in a domestic environment and trained to be docile pets reduces the chances that they are going to "snap". I don't think pit bulls have the same continuous history of domestication as house cats.

If this were true of Pit-Bulls (or other dogs) there would hardly be any need to feed them, water them, or try to keep them in a domestic environment.

Let them be born in the wild and you will see, they don't need your help to survive.

But lets entertain the Mountain Lion thought.... just for sake of argument. There are people who will not hesitate to kill every snake they encounter, these same folks would no doubt kill the Mountain Lion.

I am saying it would be reasonable to kill a mountain lion that was advancing in what you thought was a threatening manner towards your children, even if it had been tamed to be someone's pet, because that type of animal has an elevated likelihood of regarding your children as "prey" than most domesticated animals. I didn't suggest you'd shoot every mountain lion on sight.

Occasionally, a black bear, a deer, a moose, a coyote, bobcat, etc....will wander into town someplace in the USA. All of these animals are known to be a potential threat to man under certain conditions. So using your logic,

No you are not using my logic, you are making up new logic to support a straw man argument.

Using my logic, if you are in a very populated park and someone has a black bear, moose, coyote, bobcat (forget moose or deer, I am talking about carnivores here) that they have attempted to domesticate, and they bring it as a pet to this park without any leash, and then you find it advancing towards your children in what you believe is a threatening manner, THEN you will quite reasonably assume the animal is a legitimate threat, and you will shoot it.

Likewise if you are out in Yosimite hiking, and you see a wild pit bull minding its own business, I wouldn't expect you to shoot it any more than you would a black bear, coyote, bobcat, or mountain lion.

Quite simply I don't think pit bulls are fit for domestication, any more than are mountain lions or grizzly bears. That doesn't mean that people don't do it, and certainly there are people who have succeeded at taming a mountain lion and keeping it as a pet without incident. The same is true for pit bulls.

they should all be shot on sight just because of what they are! No consideration should be given to "what they are doing...or if they truly pose a threat".

I emphasized "truly" because I think this is the sole differentiator in our arguments. You see, I think that the breed of dog weighs on the determination of whether the dog's behavior is "truly" a threat, while you seem to be saying that pit bulls are no more likely to be a threat than any other breed of dog.

You hear about it often from people who have a pet python who kills or eats the family pet or a baby in the house, or with other tamed exotic animals that people keep as pets like big cats or wolves.

This is basically the more of the same. Truly wild animals vs. domesticated animals is not entirely the same thing.

No I was talking about domesticated animals, such as big cats, wolves, or pythons. I am not talking about a wild python that comes in the open window of someone's house somewhere and eats a baby. I'm talking about a python that someone bought at a pet store when it was 11 inches long and after 10 years of living in their home, being handled by people, etc., then one day while everyone's sleeping it escapes from the cage and eats the family's baby. Or some numbskull who finds a mountain lion cub and keeps it as a pet, the animal grows up and when it is 150 lb, after decades of living with people and children and being what appears to be a very normal, routine tame pet one day little Johnny goes missing and the cat has pieces of t-shirt in its teeth.

You see I think that pit bulls, even when domesticated, are dangerous like any other wild animal that has been incorrectly domesticated.

When I was a kid we had a cat that was half bobcat (it didn't live more than 18 months ... heart too small for the cat's body). We got this cat as a newborn kitten, it was the only one that survived six weeks out of the whole litter. The cat was basically like a bigger, stronger, louder, normal house cat 99% of the time but it had this wild streak that would come out every so often when it was startled or scared and it was very nearly lethal. I have first-hand knowledge of keeping wild animals as pets. My neighbor's pit bull was much the same.

So the same thing is believed by many to be true of pit bulls.

Many folks thought the world was flat at one time. My question all along has been (is it reasonable).

You mean, is it reasonable to think that pit bulls constitute more of a threat than most other dog breeds? It certainly is reasonable.

I certainly do not, and I think it is intellectually dishonest to demonize an entire breed of dog because some of them bite.

No I am not demonizing an entire breed. I am just more likely to interpret some actions of this particular breed as a threat than I am many other dog breeds. Just like I am much more likely to think a 150 lb cat is much more potentially a threat than is my 12 lb cat.

It is my opinion that any threat from a large dog is to be taken seriously....but not to make any hasty decisions to shoot based solely on breed.

Nobody ever said they made hasty decisions made solely on breed. They made decisions based on their assessment of a number of factors, perhaps including the dog's breed. That's totally reasonable.

Yeah I'm much more likely to shoot your dog if I think it is attacking me if it's:

#1 strong enough to overpower an adult man or kill a child
#2 one of a number of breeds that I CONSINDER to be more aggressive
#3 approaching in a manner that I consider to be a threat

This totally reminds me of the argument I had with my neighbor who just swore that her pit bull, like all pit bulls, was sweet and loving and harmless, despite the fact that I had to prevent it from attacking my kids one day in my back yard with a shovel. Doesn't matter how much evidence you have to demonstrate the hazard of such an animal, some people are just unwilling to consider anything other than what they already believe.

Guess that's why I'm a cat person :)

[flintknapper]

It is my opinion that any threat from a large dog is to be taken seriously....but not to make any hasty decisions to shoot based solely on breed.

Flint, that is the whole issue with this entire thread... not all of us are convinced either way regarding the incident posted.

I know.


Perhaps I've been too vocal expressing my doubts.

[BigBlueDodge]

So people automatically automatically equate pit bulls to dangerous dogs. But how many people even know what a pit bull looks like. You may think you do, but you may be surprised. Look at this page and find the pit bull (click on the picture to see if you are right or not).

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I'm quite sure that all of you who condemn pit bulls will come back with "I picked in my first choice. It was easy....", etc, but EVERYONE I've showed it to has never picked a pit bull in their first 3 selections. If you know what a pit bull looks like, it shouldn't take you long to find it. The point I'm trying to make is that so many people are quick to condemn pit bulls when they don't even know what one really looks like. There are many breeds of dogs that look close to a pit bull, but in all actuality aren't pit bulls.

Just to set the record straight, I don't own a pit bull, or any dog for that matter. My mom had a poodle when I was a kid growing up, if that counts for anything. I don't care what people think about pit bulls, that poodle was the meanest ball of fur I ever knew.

[03Lightningrocks]

So people automatically automatically equate pit bulls to dangerous dogs. But how many people even know what a pit bull looks like. You may think you do, but you may be surprised. Look at this page and find the pit bull (click on the picture to see if you are right or not).

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I'm quite sure that all of you who condemn pit bulls will come back with "I picked in my first choice. It was easy....", etc, but EVERYONE I've showed it to has never picked a pit bull in their first 3 selections. If you know what a pit bull looks like, it shouldn't take you long to find it. The point I'm trying to make is that so many people are quick to condemn pit bulls when they don't even know what one really looks like. There are many breeds of dogs that look close to a pit bull, but in all actuality aren't pit bulls.

Just to set the record straight, I don't own a pit bull, or any dog for that matter. My mom had a poodle when I was a kid growing up, if that counts for anything. I don't care what people think about pit bulls, that poodle was the meanest ball of fur I ever knew.

Personally, I am not a dog racist. I will shoot deader than dead any unrestrained viscious looking animal aproaching me or mine. If the owner doesn't be real darned careful at that point and acts aggressively as well, he may be meeting god also. This is about the dumbest darned thread I have ever read. IT WAS A DOG!!! A BIG DARNED MUSCULAR DOG! If it were a poodle, he could have kicked the dog off...but it wasn't a poodle. IT WAS A BIG MUSCULAR AGRESSIVE ACTING DOG. THE MAN WAS PROTECTING HIS INNOCENT CHILDREN FROM SAID DOG. The dog should have been on a leash...end of story. Oh...if I even see any BIG MUSCULAR VISCIOUS LOOKING DOG running loose in my neighborhood, I get my rifle and go hunting. He doesn't even have to act viscious. he just has to look BIG enough to take out a human.

How many of the folks coming to the defense of this DOG, posted on the Joe Horn thread in defense of Mr Horn's actions? So he had the right to shoot two humans in the back as they tried to run away, but this man should not have the right to shoot a dog?

[boomerang]

I hope this tragedy encourages other pet owners to keep their dogs leashed in public for their own safety.

[flintknapper]

Oh...if I even see any BIG MUSCULAR VISCIOUS LOOKING DOG running loose in my neighborhood, I get my rifle and go hunting. He doesn't even have to act viscious. he just has to look BIG enough to take out a human.

Do tell!

What is the tally?

[xpur3l0g1cx]

I personally would think that this is kinda a similiar thing to guns. Guns get all the bad rap bc of a few bad people use them. The same goes for pit bulls. The media has them hyped up about how bad they are blah blah but the truth is alot of people dont know the facts about them only myths. Hence same with guns. The owners dont take care of them and beat them and harass them. Look up the facts regarding there temperment. They have the same aggression as a cocker spanial. Seems there are a few gun owners that would be wise to this. Here is an example http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html if you can pick the pit out on the first one then let us know. Look up the facts as well before worrying about them. This cop that shot the dog probly didnt really need to

[flintknapper]

Wow, took me five tries!

And I thought I knew my dogs pretty well.

[Wildscar]

Wow, took me five tries!

And I thought I knew my dogs pretty well.

3 for me. Was probable just luck though.