Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
neighbor shot my dog
- Thread starter zwhit
- Start date
That's where I'm moving to. Just got done with renovations
Stfu, talk to anyone that works in an ER And they will tell you the same thing. We get dog bites all the time but it's only the ones from pits where the victim loses limbs or even their life.
It's ironic actually, I just had dinner with a group of ER attendings with over 60 combined years of experience and we got on this exact topic. It was a unanimous response. But WTF do I know, brownthumb I'm sure you are much more qualified on the subject. Fucking idiot
TravFlex91
New member
Dumbest thing I've ever read
already did that. couldn't bring myself to breast an old man.
Strongbow
New member
He could bring himself to shoot your poor dog thou couldn't he. Come on bro
gatemoney
Banned
I agree, at least yoke him up and put the fear of god in him.
Hey stupid.
Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous. An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack. The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting: Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds." The court then stated that, Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.
DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
Strongbow
New member
Pdaddy BB is a colored, you know they are all dog training experts, walking around with their wife beaters on weighing a buc twenty-two with some mangy half starved fucking mutt dog that they say is a Pitt. I did have a blue Pitt, she wouldn't harm a flea, but she was raised from a puppy around kids, the irony here is that most aggressive pitts are owned by stoopid, ignorant mutha fuckers, who think its cool to sick a dog on people, or beat it half to death if it doesn't listen to their commands, they call that training a dog. It's pretty fucking stupid to own a Pitt in the city or crowded neighborhood cause most times the dog will be back into a corner or forced to defend itself from ignorant ass people. Just my 2, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
cool story bro
did you hear the story from the kids parents and they said it was a pit? or was it twisted 3 or 4 times by someone who just assumed it was a pit because there was a dog attack?
you're a fucking idiot
Similar threads
