RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous

RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (4/29/2012 8:28:29 PM)
quote: if a friend brings their American Staffordshire Terrier to your house and they bite your neighbors kid in the back yard, you being the property owner become liable Bzzzt. Wrong. Not under this ruling. The landlord has to have notice. quote: If a pittbull bites a person on the grounds of an apartment complex, the company that owns the complex is liable, not the pet owner tenant. No, the landlord has to have rented the property to the owner of the Pit Bull and be on notice of such ownership. The fallout is that landlords will make precautions in the their leasing to either forbid ownership of pit bulls on their properties or include insurance provisions to insure against any bites that a Pit Bull might commit.

cloudboy -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 7:19:47 AM)
Sorry, pit bull owners, but there are innate behavioral and physical differences between the breeds. Saying that pit bulls are a dangerous breed is not to say that any individual pit bull is necessarily dangerous. The point is that the breed, in the aggregate and compared with other breeds, poses a high risk of causing serious injury. From the outside (and even, sometimes as an owner) there is no way to know the injury-causing potential of most individual dogs. As far as I'm concerned, a blanket ruling about this particular breed will increase public safety. Perhaps, in the medium- to long-run the ruling will also improve conditions for the breed. If liability issues lead landlords in Baltimore to disallow pit bulls, maybe that will cut down on the scourge of completely irresponsible overbreeding of these dogs for fighting purposes and eventually cut down on the number of pit bulls in shelters. This info found on the web: can anyone refute? http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pgs/stats.html "Pit bulls cause one-third of dog-bite related fatalities while only make up less than 2% of the dog population"... "many countries worldwide ban these dogs altogether or require licenses for ownership of them".... "many of the owners of these deadly dogs do not possess insurance and the maimed victims go uncompensated." I pulled this from the BALTO SUN blogs, and pretty much feel that the poster is dead-on correct in her observations.

FrostedFlake -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 8:25:44 AM)
I put thousands of miles on my bike in a year. I carry mace. I have used it, on just one animal. It was a pit. I had spoken to it's owner three times. He praised the dog while I explained what it had been doing. He literally told the dog that he wanted it to do what I didn't want it to do. So, of course, it did. I didn't talk to him a fourth time. I hit his dog with mace. After that, the dog was chained. What we have here is an irresponsible man training his dogs to do unacceptable things, thinking there is nothing anyone could do about it. And meeting resistance. Perhaps there is something to note in that while the man had six dogs, only the pit was sufficiently a problem to me for me to actually need to do something about it. But lets not let that distract us from the OP. What the ruling has changed, in Maryland (only), is that in future, when a pit bites, it will be assumed that the pit is a biter. In consequence, burden of proof about whether the dog owner is liable for the damage will be on the dog owner. If your dog is as wonderful as you would like me to unreasonably believe, then this ruling will not affect you. So, why are your panties in a bunch? And if this is going to affect you, because you are one of those guys like I opened this post talking about, then I have to ask. What is it about that guy your dog just shredded that makes him the bad guy? And what is it about your dog that just ripped some guy up, that makes your dog the innocent and injured party? If you can answer this question, you and your dog are off the hook. Just like when I shoot someone. [image]local://upfiles/769649/8FACADCE667E430FAB314928D445D6AF.jpg[/image] http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/how-to-defeat-someone-made-furious-by-how-to-defeat-a-pit-bull-with-your-bare-hands/Content?oid=3800677

LaTigresse -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 8:27:29 AM)
There are a lot of irresponsible people that should not have pets or children.

DarkSteven -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 9:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: if a friend brings their American Staffordshire Terrier to your house and they bite your neighbors kid in the back yard, you being the property owner become liable Bzzzt. Wrong. Not under this ruling. The landlord has to have notice. quote: If a pittbull bites a person on the grounds of an apartment complex, the company that owns the complex is liable, not the pet owner tenant. No, the landlord has to have rented the property to the owner of the Pit Bull and be on notice of such ownership. The fallout is that landlords will make precautions in the their leasing to either forbid ownership of pit bulls on their properties or include insurance provisions to insure against any bites that a Pit Bull might commit. cloudboy, reread my post: quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The law is written so that the landlord either knows of the dog or should have known. That "should have known" implies that a landlord is required to know the presence of a pit, even if the lease is written so that they're illegal. Placing the burden of knowledge on the landlord, even when the tenant has not informed him/her is just plain wrong. The part about how the landlord SHOULD HAVE KNOWN is critical. In my interpretation, simply forbidding them in the lease and then never checking the property to verify would not suffice.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 10:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA I know you were "playing devil's advocate", but I wanted to respond to the above. Noting the bolded part above, it's very clear where the HUGE FLAW in said alleged "study" comes from. Hmmm, dog fighting has significantly increased... Pit Bulls have become the "breed" of choice of said fighting... there's been an explosion in Pit Bull breeding (for fighting)... and the media will report on near every damn time a Pit Bull ever bites -- specifically citing a "Pit Bull" was involved, while frequently not citing the breed if another dog bites. Doesn't take a rocket-scientist to put two-and-two together here. Quite simply, Pit Bulls are NOT the monsters so many completely fucking ignorant people make them out to be: Not disputing the info you posted, but regarding what you were saying about newspapers, I'm pretty sure any death by dog is a news story. ---------- As for whether the newspapers were less likely to report breed if it wasn't a pitt bull, I will grant you that, however, that means 1/4th of all dogs that killed folks during those years were pitts, not 1/3rd. Still a pretty big number. I won't grant him/her shit. Why in the fuck do barely educated lay people think that they "discovered" something that people who spend their entire lives working with statistics missed? One sees the GCC deniers pull the same tired shit... "Don't them scientists know that the sun is in a cycle?" Who in the fuck found that out, moron? SCIENTISTS. "Lookie here. This here chart shows temperchurs ain't gone up since 1998." Uh, duh, include the 20 years BEFORE 1998 and see what your chart says, twatwaffle. It's Reaganitis.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 11:41:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy *This info found on the web: can anyone refute?* Ummm... YES, and I and others HAVE "refuted" it -- using both COMMON SENSE and EXPERIENCE. [8\|] As an example... from YOUR oh-so-brilliant link: DO NOT 1. Hold your face close to a dog Holding face right up against my Pitty's face right now -- she licked me. Wait... another test... 8 year old just did the same thing -- got licked as well. 2. Allow dogs to roam unleashed Uhhh... my Pitties "roam unleashed" all day in the yard. Outside the yard?!! Well, that'd be DUMB... unless you want someone to steal your dog or risk having it hit by a car, wouldn't it?!!. 3. Approach a strange dog And yet... I do exactly that frequently -- never been bit. 4. Tease a dog Pssst... that's called "play time" -- and guess what, they LOVE it and smother you with doggie kisses. 5. Startle a dog I've accidentally done that more than a few times... my Pitty YELPED -- i.e., was scared... than ran to me -- with tail all waggy-waggy. 6. Disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating, or caring for puppies Do it all the time when I have to leave and my Pitty needs to go outside till I return -- never bitten.. just a long face wondering when I'll return. 7. Leave a small child and dog alone Oh, you mean like an 8 year old sleeping with their Pit Bull pal, or my neighbor's twin 8 year old girls that come over and play with TWO Pit Bulls?!! Ummm... happens all the time. Oh, but wait... it's STATISTICS that you keep pointing to?!! Well, certainly it makes sense to just BLINDLY point to STATISTICS for your proof, right?!! Let's see... YOU STATED, "Pit Bulls cause one-third of dog-bite related fatalities while only make up less than 2% of the dog population". Thus, to draw a parallel... "According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009. According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population" (Source) Thus, using YOUR LOGIC, obviously blacks are criminals -- according to the STATISTICS. Sound familiar?!! To BLINDLY point to statistics, and IGNORE any mitigating factors is foolish, at best. The same applies to Pit Bulls... the "statistics" merely reflect that this specific breed has been TARGETED for fighting, abuse, and aggression. Nothing more. Target another breed of animal for the SAME activities, and the statistics for Pit Bulls will change. Once again... Pit Bulls USED to be known as the "Nanny" dog (i.e., great with children), and score 86.8% on the Temperament scale. They are NOT the monsters the press, or the ignorant, make them out to be: 1) According to the American Temperament Test Society, Pit Bulls score 86.8% on the Temperament scale, and DogCentral.com states the following of Pit Bulls: "The American Pit Bull Terrier, too, is actually a very friendly animal. As a matter of fact, The American Temperament Test Society dubs it one of the sweetest breeds of all! The Pit Bull has received bad press, but -- aside from digging holes in your backyard -- this breed can be a big bundle of joy." http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ http://www.dogs-central.com/choosing-a-dog.html 2) "John Goodwin, an expert on animal fighting with the Humane Society, says there are an estimated 40,000 professional dogfighters in the United States, involved in putting on fights and buying and selling fighting dogs. Watch what goes on at a high-stakes dog fight But, Goodwin adds, there could be as many as 100,000 additional people involved in "streetfighting" -- informal dogfighting, often involving young people in gangs. "It's far more pervasive than people think and it's definitely been on the upswing in the past five to 10 years," he told CNN. See how dogfighters operate and have their own language Statistics from animal shelters give another indicator of the rise in dogfighting, Goodwin said. Fifteen years ago, 2 to 3 percent of the dogs coming into animal shelters were pit bulls; now, he said, pit bulls make up about a third. At one shelter in Jersey City, New Jersey, Goodwin said, the figure is 65 percent, with 20 percent of them showing the scars that indicate they have been fighting dogs. A database run by animal advocacy group Pet-abuse.com, which collects reports of animal abuse, shows reports of dogfighting cases increased from 16 in 2000 to 127 in 2006." http://articles.cnn.com/2007-07-18/us/dog.fighting_1_illegal-blood-sport-underground-dogfighting-magazines-animal-shelters?_s=PM:US

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 11:49:26 AM)
STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS!!! Dolly the Pit Bull http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZeRKk0Q6o (one of my favorite YouTube Vids) [:)]

Karmastic -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 2:14:15 PM)
So much unmitigated bullshit in this thread, mixed in with some real words of wisdom. 1. Pit bulls are NOT inherently more dangerous to HUMANS than any other breed: They are bred to fight other dogs, NOT humans. They can be very dog-aggressive, and yes, they clamp down and don’t let go. 2. Most of the pits I've encountered (100s) were blubbery blobs of loving fun around humans. That point has been made over and over because it's true. I have a pit-lab mix, and she licks people to death. 3. There's more pit attacks because it's the popular weapon of choice for thugs. Yes, dogs can be weapons. 4. This law changes NOTHING for property owners: Property owners have ALWAYS been responsible for dog attacks on their property with the right facts of the case (like knowing or should have known). The key words quoted were "had the right to control the pit bull’s presence". That's boilerplate language, and changes nothing! The real change is adding an important PRESUMPTION (or said conversely, removing a burden of proof), for a liability that was always there. Namely, that pit bulls are now classified as automatically being dangerous, so it removes the "should have known" liability, and changes it to "knows" it's dangerous - THAT'S IT - PERIOD! And that presumption can still be rebutted with facts showing the dog is not dangerous. 5. This new law is just more political pandering to sensationalism: it won't solve the root problem. Thugs will just switch to a different breed. 6. The solution to this problem is not to demonize the breed, but to demonize the owner: Enhanced civil and criminal penalties against owners of ANY dog that attacks. /soapbox

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 2:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Why in the fuck do barely educated lay people think that they "discovered" something that people who spend their entire lives working with statistics missed? Why the fuck do barely educated lay people think BLIND STATISTICS and ZERO EXPERIENCE qualify them to run their mouth about things they clearly know NOTHING about, compared to people who've spent DECADES with the breed?!! [8\|]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 2:35:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karmastic I have a pit-lab mix, and she licks people to death. HA... like mine, yours has a liquor ("Licker" [:D]) problem. quote: There's more pit attacks because it's the popular weapon of choice for thugs. Yes, dogs can be weapons. That's a small part of the problem... the ROOT of the problem is the MONEY that's made from dog-fighting. Change the laws so that dog-fighting carries a minimum 10 year prison sentence -- the SAME for animal abusers like that scum-bag piece-of-shit Michael Vick!!!

Karmastic -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 3:59:48 PM)
please don't underestimate or discount the concept, which again, is that it's the weapon of choice for thugs. they use those weapons in the pit ring. why must you disagree with someone who agrees with you? And while we're talking about having stricter criminal penalties, let's trace it back to the BYBs (back yard breeders).

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 7:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Karmastic please don't underestimate or discount the concept, which again, is that it's the weapon of choice for thugs. Oh, I don't discount what you'd stated at all... I just feel the MONEY component is a larger element to the abuse of the breed -- i.e., that MONEY is what drives dog-fighting.

kalikshama -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 7:11:56 PM)
quote: "Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries each year. This represents between 0.5% and 1.5% of all hospital emergency room visits. Male patients slightly outnumber females. Unfortunately children comprise 60% of the dog bite victims. Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age. The face is the most frequent target (77% of all injures). Ya, I still have a little scar on my face from startling a neighbor's German Shepherd 40 years ago. Strange dogs made me nervous for most of that time, but getting and falling in love with the Husky and spending a lot of time at Dog Park helped with that.

Karmastic -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/2/2012 10:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Karmastic please don't underestimate or discount the concept, which again, is that it's the weapon of choice for thugs. Oh, I don't discount what you'd stated at all... I just feel the MONEY component is a larger element to the abuse of the breed -- i.e., that MONEY is what drives dog-fighting. yes, we still agree. there was never any disagreement - rather, you expanded on what i said about the root of the problem. thanks for so diligently sticking up for pits, and expanding this thread with knowledge and facts, rather than visceral emotional responses about bad doggies.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/3/2012 1:39:33 PM)
[:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [image]local://upfiles/687741/747ED1D6D383443492CE5F526B51F980.jpg[/image]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/3/2012 5:59:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Karmastic please don't underestimate or discount the concept, which again, is that it's the weapon of choice for thugs. Oh, I don't discount what you'd stated at all... I just feel the MONEY component is a larger element to the abuse of the breed -- i.e., that MONEY is what drives dog-fighting. Who's money?

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/3/2012 6:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Karmastic please don't underestimate or discount the concept, which again, is that it's the weapon of choice for thugs. Oh, I don't discount what you'd stated at all... I just feel the MONEY component is a larger element to the abuse of the breed -- i.e., that MONEY is what drives dog-fighting. Whose money? http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/dog-fighting-faq.aspx

thishereboi -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/3/2012 6:09:55 PM)
quote: DO NOT 1. Hold your face close to a dog Holding face right up against my Pitty's face right now -- she licked me. Wait... another test... 8 year old just did the same thing -- got licked as well. None of my dogs ever had a problem with this, but they were my dogs and used to me. Our old cocker spaniel wouldn't have a problem with a strange girl, but she absolutely hated boys. If they did the same thing, they were in risk of being bit. 2. Allow dogs to roam unleashed Uhhh... my Pitties "roam unleashed" all day in the yard. Outside the yard?!! Well, that'd be DUMB... unless you want someone to steal your dog or risk having it hit by a car, wouldn't it?!!. Yes it would 3. Approach a strange dog And yet... I do exactly that frequently -- never been bit. You have been lucky, suggesting this is a smart move is just stupid. I remember when we had our dog out for a walk and some guy walked up and started to reach for her. We told him to back off because she didn't like strangers. He told us that it was alright because he had dogs too. She snapped at his hand and he jumped back about 5 feet. I guess she didn't care if he had dogs or not. 4. Tease a dog Pssst... that's called "play time" -- and guess what, they LOVE it and smother you with doggie kisses. When I hear about teasing a dog, I think about the idiot kids in our neighborhood who used to hit the fence to make the neighbor's dog bark. They thought it was funny as hell to watch her try to get away from her chain. well until the day the chain broke and they thought she was going to come over the fence at them. Not sure how you think teasing any animal is equal to playing with them. 5. Startle a dog I've accidentally done that more than a few times... my Pitty YELPED -- i.e., was scared... than ran to me -- with tail all waggy-waggy. Again, it depends on the dog. My ex had a dog that would snap if you startled him and I have seen some you could trip over and they wouldn't wake up. 6. Disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating, or caring for puppies Do it all the time when I have to leave and my Pitty needs to go outside till I return -- never bitten.. just a long face wondering when I'll return. See number 5 7. Leave a small child and dog alone Oh, you mean like an 8 year old sleeping with their Pit Bull pal, or my neighbor's twin 8 year old girls that come over and play with TWO Pit Bulls?!! Ummm... happens all the time. Yes and occasionally you hear about the ones who get ripped apart. But if you want to take that chance with your kids, go for it. I think most of the advice on the list is for dogs in general. There will always be exceptions to any of it. It will also depend on whether or not the dog in question knows you. There was alot of shit that I could get away with, with the dogs I raised that no one else could.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous (5/3/2012 6:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi FYI... the point of the post was to demonstrate that these alleged oh-so-dangerous "Pit Bulls" are no different from any other dog/breed -- just depends on how they're raised/treated. [:)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875