Skanky_Cat t1_j43dt4x wrote
Dumb bitch should catch assault charges for each attack. That’s how you put a stop to these kinds of things.
kentfrostphoto t1_j43itab wrote
According to the article the only thing she did wrong was skip some shots they needed. It was her dumbass brother who let them out.
pile_of_holes t1_j43y0uu wrote
Failure to register them when city ordinance calls for it isn’t wrong? Failure to neuter (while not illegal) is certainly a wrong from a responsible pet ownership perspective, along with failure to have an outdoor space capable of containing two large dogs.
Alongside the failure to do the most basic thing, getting your dog vaccinated for rabies, these things are pretty damning to me. Doesn’t matter who let them out the door.
Edit: typos.
feralfantastic t1_j43yl5h wrote
She failed to vaccinate them for rabies. And defended them as being well behaved. She should not own dogs, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and maybe a bill to ban the breed should be named after her. No part of this situation is not her fault. Did her brother force her to let him watch the dogs at gunpoint?
Wrinklestiltskin t1_j4698pi wrote
Not disagreeing with you but for accuracy's sake, it was only one that was unvaccinated, not both.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j441vex wrote
What good would a bill that bans these dogs do? There are already restrictions in place inside of green county. She did not have the dogs properly vaccinated. I didn't see any say of her actually having the dogs registered. And they were also not neutered. Unfortunately none of these things would have necessarily changed this situation whatsoever. Having the dogs neutered might have helped but it's no guarantee. The owner was not the one that let the dogs out. Unfortunately we are unsure if there was a fenced in yard or not. Which if I am not mistaken is also required by greene county when registering this breed. All of this goes to show that even with rules and regulations in place there are not always people that follow them. Banning the dogs is not necessarily going to fix any of this, as the same people that are not following the likely won't follow a complete ban. There's not really a good way to monitor a ban like that.
In my opinion the problem lies much much deeper. I'd be happy to post why I think this if people are interested.
feralfantastic t1_j44cvgx wrote
What would a bill that bans the breed do?
Reduce the number of dangerous dogs over time, humiliate the person singly responsible for doing school-shooting damage to an elementary school and risking secondary fatalities by failing to get them their rabies shots.
We don’t need guarantees that a cure would prevent the harm it’s trying to address, just a reasonable calculation.
lightsrage85 t1_j45xgas wrote
Ok, here i put my two cents in. I have been around pit bulls all my life. I have never been hurt by them. There are bad people who raise pits to do harm and there are great dogs. You cannot punish an entire breed over a couple dogs. I happen to know a couple of pits who would rather lick you to death and love on you than hurt you. So yeah. So here is my question would you ban labridors because of a labridor going off the wall? just my thought. If you would bann one breed and not another perhaps you need to learn more about some dogs and how they can be raised. Pits raised and trained well can be great dogs.
feralfantastic t1_j467qhy wrote
If “well-behaved” pit bulls can randomly go crazy and rip up a school yard, the breed is too volatile to go without significant regulation. This is not an isolated incident. This is not even about punishing dogs (that doesn’t work) but about acknowledging that the average dog owner cannot prevent a pit bull from becoming dangerous to human life.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44e7mb wrote
It goes back to again an matter of training. And bad dog owners. We already have regulations in place for this breed. And people are not following them. If these regulations would be enforced outside of only when things like this happen it might help. But if they aren't following the regulations now, what's stopping them from not following a ban? This woman has already been humiliated has she not?
feralfantastic t1_j44fm9r wrote
No. She hasn’t. She should be in jail. She isn’t.
If regulations aren’t working, you change the regulations, or you step up enforcement, or both.
These animals are too fragile to be owned by people that cannot manage them. You should need a license to own them, should not be allowed to have fertile ones without paying a substantial annual fee, and the fines associated with failing to follow this should be ruinously expensive or result in the death of the animal in question. This should eliminate the breed over time, or keep it in the hands of people that can control it best.
ProgressMom68 t1_j44p2qh wrote
This is the most logical solution I’ve seen yet. I would add to it, requiring a minimum of $100k liability insurance.
Low_Tourist t1_j45s95i wrote
Most insurance companies won't insure pits. It's a common issue with many breeds like Boxers, Rotts and Dobies, too.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44i2fw wrote
Welcome to Missouri where we have an endless number of puppy mills and irresponsible breeders. There's a much larger problem than just the dogs themselves. Inside of green county you are technically suppose to have them registered which is similar to having a license. If I'm wrong please correct me. That didn't change anything.
springfieldmo_17 t1_j44h22d wrote
Humiliated? Who cares if she’s been humiliated! She should be paying for the medical bills her dogs caused. She should have to pay for the therapy these children and teachers may have to go to because of this trauma. She should go to jail for assault and have her picture plastered across media. Then and only then would I say she may have been humiliated.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j445su9 wrote
This is a link to the regulations starting at Sec 18-95. And inside of Sec 18-98 (number 5) there is a link to what is considered confined under subsection 18-59.1
It's a lot to read but there are very many "rules" instated that I see broken every single day. Putting a full ban on these dogs I don't personally will solve the issue whatsoever.
PieBiter t1_j44ju9b wrote
With a ban, there's nothing to "monitor". Breed is reported, police & animal control show up, take the mutt and send it to eternity. Owner is fined + costs. The end.
cdcemm t1_j46ff29 wrote
The houses across from the school do not have fenced yards.
Always_0421 t1_j43nkp9 wrote
That and keeping them as pets.
OmniFella t1_j43pu9z wrote
If you're gonna have dogs like that, they need to be trained. You don't keep animals with raw instincts like that without training them to self-regulate. 20 bucks says they were completely untrained and considered their "territory" to be wherever the hell they were at any given moment unless calmed by their owner. Without the owner, anyone in view of those dogs were incorrectly considered "trespassers" by them. She's not a dumb bitch for having them. She's a dumb bitch for not training them. They're about half a step away from being ferral dogs at that point.
Funky_Farkleface t1_j44mn8j wrote
“Raw instincts” to do what? There are humans with raw instincts to harm others and we keep them locked up or we execute them. Do you believe serial killers with raw instincts are salvageable with training? Can a murderer coexist with us if we castrate, vaccinate, license, and train them? I believe some could be, a small percentage might be allowed into society with rigorous, highly-focused mental treatment. But there are, without debate, a percentage of those with “raw instincts” who will never qualify to share our space. That is the reality for humans with “raw instincts”.
Why is a dog, a single particular breed with the same raw instincts—murder—given more concession?
OmniFella t1_j460763 wrote
I'm talking about dogs. Not people. False equivalence. Your comparisons are bogus.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments