Guest Anonymous Posted April 30, 2004 Posted April 30, 2004 Toddlers Attack, Kill Pit Bull by Tucker H. Johnson, NA!P NewsWire DENVER, Colo -- In a scene that seems to be playing out with growing regularity across the nation, three toddlers attacked and killed a pit bull yesterday afternoon. It was the seventh child attack on a pit bull in as many months in the Denver Metro area. Maggie Hindler was walking her four-year-old pit bull, Max, in Washington Park around 3:00 PM when the three toddlers appeared out of nowhere and immediately began attacking her dog. Hindler says that she and Max did nothing to provoke the toddlers and that she didn't even see them until they were almost on top of her dog. "We were just walking along," a visibly-shaken Hindler recalled. "We weren't doing anything. And suddenly, these little kids shot out of these bushes and attacked Max. He was helpless." Hindler and several other bystanders tried to pull the toddlers off of max, without luck. Kent Randolph was one of the bystanders who tried to help Hindler, and he concedes that it was almost impossible to get the kids to stop their attack. "I tried screaming at them, hitting them with sticks, prying at their jaws," Randolph said. "Nothing worked. They would turn and start to go at us for a second but then would immediately go back to attacking the dog. And you know how it is with them. Once they get their teeth into something, they just don't let go. Their little jaws are so strong." Denver County passed an ordinance in 2001, banning the ownership of toddlers entirely. Anyone caught owning a toddler in Denver is subject to a $1000 fine and up to a year in jail. The toddlers are confiscated and are either euthanized at Denver Children's Hospital or sold for medical research. "We have been telling the community about toddlers for years," Dr. Sally Jacobs, Chief of Child Psychology at Denver Children's Hospital, told The New News. "But a large part of the community doesn't listen. The facts are clear: Humans have been bread for centuries to do nothing by maim and kill. It's in their genes, in their nature, and nothing is going to change that. Not a good home or a loving family. That is why Denver outlawed toddlers several years ago. They are simply too dangerous to have in our community." Thursday's scene is fairly typical of recent toddler attacks. At some point, the toddlers come together as a pack and end up in a place well-traveled by people and their dogs. They attack with little or no warning. They don't have collars, but they often have several juice boxes in their possession. Denver police showed up on the scene shortly after the attack and were forced to kill the toddlers when they turned on police. Unfortunately, it was too late for poor Max. Needless to say, Hindler is just angry. "Who can be so irresponsible to raise these things?" she said. "I mean, what if these toddlers had attacked another person? Or a cat?" Lt. Steve Halfy of the Denver Police Department said that while they could not immediately identify the owner of the toddlers, they were following several leads. "We'll find out whose kids these are, and we'll bring them to justice. This just sickens me. How many more dogs are going to have to die before people realize that these toddlers are killers, plain and simple." :P
courtnek Posted May 1, 2004 Posted May 1, 2004 OMG ROTT! I ALMOST bought it, until the part where they went into the jaws of toddlers...then I laughed til I cried... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Guest Mutts4Me Posted May 1, 2004 Posted May 1, 2004 That was unexpectedly funny. I thought it was going to be something more serious, about how kids (and their parents) are causing the deaths of pit bulls by being stupid (teasing, hugging, touching while eating, trespassing, etc).
Guest Anonymous Posted May 21, 2004 Posted May 21, 2004 :laugh2_2: That one almost got me!!! Good one :lol:
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 The reason this is "funny" is that we are all so accustomed to seeing actual articles about pit bulls actually killing children. Frankly, that seems a strange place for the pit bull community to find humor. And, Rott n pitt, isn't this YOUR pit bull, STILL advertised for sale on the internet? http://www.hoobly.com/listings/25883/ukc_blue_male_pit_bull_best_offer.html And didn't you previously post that this dog was neutered and had neuticals? Why don't you mention that in the ad? Is it because you are afraid that the kind of puppy millers who buy pit bulls on the internet wouldn't give you a good price for a neutered dog? Or were you lying when you said he was neutered? primrose
Lucky Chaos Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 Primrose, the search button is your friend. Use it. We've been over this many times. I'm still on no one's side, but no need to attack RNP in every thread he posts on! This was a funny article, if you wanted to talk to him, PM him.
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 Well, if you read my post, you can see that I wanted to comment on the...um...strangeness of the pit bull community finding humor in writing an article that mirrors the articles we are accustomed to seeing about pit bulls killing children. How is it that that is funny, exactly? But I also wanted to comment on the fact that Rott n Pitts dogs keep showing up for sale on the internet. Maybe it IS all a scam of some sort and he is a victim. But we know for a fact that even after Rott n pitt was exposed to a lot of education about how to find a responsible puppy breeder, and how to be a responsible puppy purchaser, he went out and bought a backyard breeder puppy from an irresponsible breeder and then chopped its ears off. For me, that is the mark of a person who does what he wants and doesn't much care about the consequences of his actions on dogs. Don't you agree? primrose
izzy Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 :lol: :lol: :lol: that was great RNP Can i ask why are we still caring of opinions like this guest's? :P
bk_blue Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 primrose napisał(a): But I also wanted to comment on the fact that Rott n Pitts dogs keep showing up for sale on the internet. Maybe it IS all a scam of some sort and he is a victim. But we know for a fact that even after Rott n pitt was exposed to a lot of education about how to find a responsible puppy breeder, and how to be a responsible puppy purchaser, he went out and bought a backyard breeder puppy from an irresponsible breeder and then chopped its ears off. For me, that is the mark of a person who does what he wants and doesn't much care about the consequences of his actions on dogs. Yes it seems to be true that RNP's dogs keep showing up for sale. Maybe it is him, maybe it isn't. Is there any conclusive evidence either way? RNP sure isn't saying much; again, I implore RNP to publicly state what the hell is going on. You don't have to, of course, but it would be nice if you did; you are the only person who can clear your name. Your point about education was good (I can't find much to disagree with you about BYBs et al) however I would like to know who "we" are. Do you mean people from this board? Or from other sources? I would really like other board stuff (if that is the case) to be kept on other boards. This is merely for the sake of trying to keep some semblance of peace. :) I think I also find it interesting that guests who have valid points (not the trolls :evilbat: ) are treated with scant respect. How would we all react if it were a guest who had done what RNP may or may not have done?? :-?
bk_blue Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 yeah I know but I think it is strange how everyone is so quick to defend RNP just because he is a member (that's the way it seems anyway). I really think it would make a difference if he had just joined the site, or was a regular "guest"; to me at least, post count and longevity has nothing to do with the weight your opinion should be given. All I can imagine that if it were me in the same position (assuming he is not responsible for the ads etc) I would a) publicly state what was going on and b) expect to be questioned about them on a public forum I was a long-standing member of that has an obvious interest in the well-being of dogs. However RNP is not me and what he does is up to him, and I respect his wishes. I just think it would be nice to have some sort of assurance from the man himself as to what the situation is. That's all. I'm going to bed, I fully expect all hell to have broken loose by the time I wake up and will be disappointed if at least one thread hasn't been locked. :lol: :lol:
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 Yes it seems to be true that RNP's dogs keep showing up for sale. Maybe it is him, maybe it isn't. Is there any conclusive evidence either way? RNP sure isn't saying much; again, I implore RNP to publicly state what the h*** is going on. You don't have to, of course, but it would be nice if you did; you are the only person who can clear your name. Your point about education was good (I can't find much to disagree with you about BYBs et al) however I would like to know who "we" are. Do you mean people from this board? Or from other sources? I would really like other board stuff (if that is the case) to be kept on other boards. This is merely for the sake of trying to keep some semblance of peace. :) I think I also find it interesting that guests who have valid points (not the trolls :evilbat: ) are treated with scant respect. How would we all react if it were a guest who had done what RNP may or may not have done?? :-?[/quote] ******************* Well, you make a point. Let me explain my thinking linking the allegations about Rott n pitt's own treatment of his dogs (some of which, like that he bought a pit bull from a backyard breeder just because he wanted it, he has admitted) to his posting of the "funny" article about children killing pit bulls. I have freely admitted that I don't know for certain why anybody would think that this article is funny. But I am guessing that it is meant to parody what some writer thinks is over the top media coverage of pit bulls who kill children. If the roles were reversed and toddlers were killing pit bulls, the article seems to be saying, look how ridiculous the coverage would seem. The author of the article is implying (once again) that the reason people don't like pit bulls is because the media is unfair. Well....yeah. But the fact is that the roles are NOT reversed, and even if they were, we RIGHTLY care more about the deaths of children than we do about dog deaths. When a toddler is killed by a pit bull, guess what? Normal people get upset about it. It isn't absurd to write pretty emotional articles about it. But more to the point, blaming the media evades taking personal responsibility for one's own actions. I can sort understand media criticism coming from somebody who is being totally personally responsible about his/her pit bulls and the choices related to his/her pit bulls. (Although much more criticism should be directed at irresponsible breeders and owners==the media just reports the fruits of their actions). But if it is a person who consciously chooses to support pit bull puppy miller or backyard breeders, (to say nothing of the other stuff) then he IS the problem, and shouldn't be pointing fingers at the media. primrose
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 LOL...don't get me wrong. I definitely think RnP should say something in his defense. I would if it were me. But I'm more tired of rude guests than absent RnP. All of it's just a snotty little mess. :klacz: Nice post... IMO, everyone knows about it already. And I think everyone here is able to form their own opinions on the matter and your, primrose, constant posting is probably not going to change anyones ideals on the matter. Just drop it!
courtnek Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 personally, I thought it was funny. I love parody, whether Rott posted it or not is irrelevant. No, I dont think Pit's killing children is funny. I DO think the press should be made to show more responsible judgement on their stories. Not just about dogs, but everything in general. What you dont seem to understand is that the press is ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY. They will print whatever they think will SELL....there are some decent, caring journalists out there, who try hard to print only the known facts in the story.....but sensationalism sells. you cant get around that.
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 So you think it is "rude" to notice when people do things that actually hurt dogs? Odd. How is it that you expect people to get educated if it is "rude" to point out the problems that other people cause? Or is education not a priority with you? primrose
Guest Anonymous Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 courtnek napisał(a):personally, I thought it was funny. I love parody, whether Rott posted it or not is irrelevant. No, I dont think Pit's killing children is funny. I DO think the press should be made to show more responsible judgement on their stories. Not just about dogs, but everything in general. What you dont seem to understand is that the press is ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY. They will print whatever they think will SELL....there are some decent, caring journalists out there, who try hard to print only the known facts in the story.....but sensationalism sells. you cant get around that. Jeeze...I am wondering exactly how you think that the media should be "made to show more responsible judgment on their stories..." Have you heard about freedom of the press? The reality is that when a dog attacks and kills a child it is a sensational strory. It horrifies people. Nobody really needs to do anything beyond reporting the facts to make that story "sensational." So I am not sure how you think that such a story could be accurately reported and not be "sensational." Can you give us an example of reporting of a dog killing a child story that you think is particularly over the top from the mainstream media? primrose
courtnek Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 I think were on different pages here. I was responding to the post that said that even though it was parody, people shouldnt think it was funny because Pit's do bite children. No I am a strong believer (and preacher) on education in the dog space. That doesnt make the post any less funny, and I dont really think the media are "educating" anyone on Pit Bull's with the sensationalism journalism. The media are selling stories. Many of the "pit bulls" they have written about were not Pit Bull's at all....yet I've never seen a retraction to the incorrect "facts" in their stories. If you are talking about what Rott "supposedly" did, no one has proved that to me yet. I am NOT going to get into this again, I'm really tired of the whole thing, but I stand by my conviction that you are innocent until proven guilty. No one has proven anything to me yet. And yes, Rott should come, and explain himself. However, there is no way to make him do so, and after being attacked the way he was, I might decide to not come back as well. I happen to believe him. That's my choice. All the so-called "proof" is no proof at all, so I am not backing down on my personal opinion. Maybe he's guilty, maybe not. I am not his judge. Only he can account for his behavior. I will NOT do it for him. or judge him without hard proof.
Sharpeigirl Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 The post was ment to be funny, my lord. Everyone is getting their tails in a knot again over RNP. Who I still believe. Yes Pits do bite people, but so do rotties, GSD's, Golden's, Labs, heck any breed of dog can bite & possabliy kill a child. Just cause it's a pit it gets more covrage then say your neighbors out of control lab.
courtnek Posted May 22, 2004 Posted May 22, 2004 Jeeze...I am wondering exactly how you think that the media should be "made to show more responsible judgment on their stories..." Have you heard about freedom of the press? "Freedom of the Press" entitles them to print stories here, that in other places the government would want to hush up. I have no problem with it, except when they are giving out miltary news that could endanger the soldiers. However, I still think true "facts" should be required. If the dog was a Pit Bull, then fine. But if it ISNT (and most of them are NOT) they have no right, even under freedom of the press, to damn a dog who didnt do the deed. If they want to word it as "looked like a possible Pit Bull", or "may have been a Pit Bull Mix", that's different. That leaves the door open for someone else to say NO IT WASNT. And leaves a question in the readers mind....was it or wasnt it? but they dont do that. because "maybe" doesnt sell as well as "IS"...
bk_blue Posted May 23, 2004 Posted May 23, 2004 oh damn, I was wrong... nothing's been locked :lol: :lol: :lol:
Guest Anonymous Posted May 23, 2004 Posted May 23, 2004 [quote name='courtnek']Jeeze...I am wondering exactly how you think that the media should be "made to show more responsible judgment on their stories..." Have you heard about freedom of the press? "Freedom of the Press" entitles them to print stories here, that in other places the government would want to hush up. I have no problem with it, except when they are giving out miltary news that could endanger the soldiers. However, I still think true "facts" should be required. If the dog was a Pit Bull, then fine. But if it ISNT (and most of them are NOT) they have no right, even under freedom of the press, to d*** a dog who didnt do the deed. If they want to word it as "looked like a possible Pit Bull", or "may have been a Pit Bull Mix", that's different. That leaves the door open for someone else to say NO IT WASNT. And leaves a question in the readers mind....was it or wasnt it? but they dont do that. because "maybe" doesnt sell as well as "IS"... ***************** Where. exactly do you get information to state as a FACT that "most of" the dogs identified as pit bulls killing children are not pit bulls? I suggest that you look at the actual research done, particularly by Karen Delise in her book "Fatal Dog Attacks." She is well aware of the potential for misidentification of dogs, but she absolutely does not doubt that pit bulls have killed approximately 90 people in her study, whereas "your neighbor's lab" (despite being, by far, the most popular breed) has killed four. An interesting fact is that mixed breed dogs seem to be underrepresented in fatal dog attacks. While that seems, initially, to be counterintuitive, (wouldn't mixed breeds be less responsibly bred on average than purebreds?) the fact is that killing human beings is extremely dog behavior. If you want extreme dog behavior, you really need to breed specifically for it, since randomness dilutes extreme behavior. (this is why mixed breeds don't win sheepdog trials--border collies do). And the sad fact is that lots of people continue to breed pit bulls for aggression. Nobody really breeds labradors FOR aggression, which is why forty five times more pit bulls have killed people in this country than labradors. primrose
courtnek Posted May 23, 2004 Posted May 23, 2004 A pit bull, bred to "true" pit bull lines, is not human aggressive. And I'm not going to argue with you about it. The ones that are bred to be "aggressive" are not bred to true lines. yes, people are breeding these half pit's, mixed pits, for aggression. That's what should be stopped. That is why I have always been a stron proponent for breeding licenses. And dont even bother tellinb me no on can enforce it. They can enforce rabies vacs, they can enforce breeding licenses/ And yes, HERE,rabies vacs are ENFORCED.
Guest Anonymous Posted May 23, 2004 Posted May 23, 2004 courtnek napisał(a):A pit bull, bred to "true" pit bull lines, is not human aggressive. And I'm not going to argue with you about it. The ones that are bred to be "aggressive" are not bred to true lines. yes, people are breeding these half pit's, mixed pits, for aggression. That's what should be stopped. That is why I have always been a stron proponent for breeding licenses. And dont even bother tellinb me no on can enforce it. They can enforce rabies vacs, they can enforce breeding licenses/ And yes, HERE,rabies vacs are ENFORCED. ***************** What do you mean "true" lines? Are you claiming that human aggressive pit bulls are never purebred? That would be odd, to say the least, since every breed of dog has produces human aggressive individuals. And if evil and irresponsible people value the trait of human aggression in pit bulls (and many evil and irresponsible people demonstrably do) why would it be difficult for them to selectively breed for this trait. After all, the same type of evil individual selectively bred pit bulls for high levels of dangerousness toward other dogs, and achieved that goal in a relatively few generations. I am not sure what you think would be accomplished by licensing breeders. What would be your criteria for granting licenses? Why wouldn't it be easier (and much more easily accomplished) to just make it illegal to own intact unregistered (AKC or UKC only, please) pit bulls? If that doesn't solve the problem, make it a requirement that any pit bull have a CGC by a year old to remain intact. And if THAT doesn't solve the problem, make it illegal to breed any pit bull that doesn't have at least a CD and illegal to have an intact pit bull over 18 months old who doesn't have at least a CD. primrose
odnarb Posted May 24, 2004 Posted May 24, 2004 primrose napisał(a):and illegal to have an intact pit bull over 18 months old who doesn't have at least a CD. primrose I personally think that is a bit harsh for this breed. There are several dogs that HAVE pulled it off. However, there are a lot of pit bulls that aren't mentally mature enough to enter the obedience ring at 18 months. Grant just turned three, and he is just now showing that he is actually mature enough to get it. At 18 months he knew the routine, but not in an even remotely serious situation :lol:
Guest Anonymous Posted May 24, 2004 Posted May 24, 2004 Why wouldn't it be easier (and much more easily accomplished) to just make it illegal to own intact unregistered (AKC or UKC only, please) pit bulls? why, may i ask, do are you limiting to akc and ukc only?
Recommended Posts