COCKGOBBLER!!

[DreamerTheresa]

This man should DIE DIE DIE!


http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...g_of_pit_bull/

[jrobbins30041]

they are scary dogs...

[Jaimecbr900]

That guy should get the book thrown at him for sure. That was totally uncalled for. I don't care if it's Cujo. If you got away from the "danger", you have no right to go back out into that "danger" and do something like that. If he had done that to a person vs a dog, he'd be getting charged for murder or manslaughter for sure.

That's ridiculous. I hope he gets what's coming to him.

[DreamerTheresa]

It wasn't even self-defense. He WENT BACK into his house to get the knife, then went back outside to murder the dog.

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm with you. That guy had other motives he's not tellilng us about....

[Spyder]

Intersting how people feel and react to something like this.

in the interest of not causing a huge debate ill leave my opinions out of this.

[Jaimecbr900]

Spyder- I don't know what's there to debate about. The guy lied about his involvement until he got really caught in his lie. Strike one. The guy admitted he went INSIDE to retrieve a weapon to "defend" himself from a threat that's OUTSIDE. ????. HMMMM, let's see here. He got into his house where he was now "safe" to then go BACK to where he says the "scary" animal is to do what?????? Strike two. He then stabs the animal because he "nipped" at him???? When the animal has clear evidence of NEVER having that perpensity before???? Strike three IMO.

Had this been a rabid dog attacking an innocent child, no problem. Had this been a dog that had a history of aggressiveness or biting, no problem. Had this been a situation where the dog was attacking that guy and he had to do that to get the dog off him, absolutely no problem. Noone of that happened in this case. So I truly don't see how any compassionate human being could not be upset that a harmless animal was killed in that fashion.

Can you?

[Spyder]

Spyder- I don't know what's there to debate about. The guy lied about his involvement until he got really caught in his lie. Strike one. The guy admitted he went INSIDE to retrieve a weapon to "defend" himself from a threat that's OUTSIDE. ????. HMMMM, let's see here. He got into his house where he was now "safe" to then go BACK to where he says the "scary" animal is to do what?????? Strike two. He then stabs the animal because he "nipped" at him???? When the animal has clear evidence of NEVER having that perpensity before???? Strike three IMO.

Had this been a rabid dog attacking an innocent child, no problem. Had this been a dog that had a history of aggressiveness or biting, no problem. Had this been a situation where the dog was attacking that guy and he had to do that to get the dog off him, absolutely no problem. Noone of that happened in this case. So I truly don't see how any compassionate human being could not be upset that a harmless animal was killed in that fashion.

Can you?

i wondered if anyone would call me on this.. I can understand completely from what you are saying how you and others would feel the way you do about this, and again im not trying to start a huge debate.. (which is where this looks like it is headed) so here it is for you. i hope that you can respect my opinion as i respect yours.

I hate dogs. all dogs big one small ones hairy ones bald ones all of them. there is nothing a dog can offer me that would ever make me want to own one. ever.

that being said... do i think what dude did according to the news paper and reporters is correct? Hell no. i think they should do the same thing to him that he did if the dog was infact innocent.

I personally have had some very bad experiances with both peoples and animals being on my personal property. I have also had bad family experiances with family members and dogs, pit bulls and chows in particular.

I think that anyone that is not responsible enough to keep the dog on a leesh or in a fenced back yard where the chain link is actually burried does not deserve to own an animal. if you cannot abide by local laws pertaining to animal control you shouldnt have an animal to control.

I also belive that if there is something that is on your property that you dont want there you should have the right to remove it however you see fit. All of these things combined mean that i would have likely called animal control and let them deal with the dog, especially if i knew it wasnt a danger to the community. i would have also litterly shot it on the spot if i saw it a second time... or even the first time if i had childern

the only part of your defense that i dont buy is the part where you say he shouldnt have hurt a dog that had not been known to be violent or whatever in the past... he was only there 10 days and had not meet the owner, and i would guess the dog either... just wanted to point that out.

[Jaimecbr900]

i wondered if anyone would call me on this..

You knew I would.....

I hate dogs. all dogs big one small ones hairy ones bald ones all of them. there is nothing a dog can offer me that would ever make me want to own one. ever.

That is totally your perrogative, so cool.

do i think what dude did according to the news paper and reporters is correct? Hell no. i think they should do the same thing to him that he did if the dog was infact innocent.

This is where I guess you and I don't agree.

Certain things in life fall into place and make sense. Common sense. Commons sense dictates that IF the dog did in fact do something to the man.....WHY in the world would he walk over and LIE over and over again until he was forced to tell the truth????? This my friend is a sure sign of GUILT 99.9% of the time. IF the dog did anything, why didn't HE call the police or animal control to report it? WHY did he ADMIT he went BACK IN THE HOUSE to get a weapon to "defend" himself??? The accused has not kept a single story straight yet. Common sense dictates that when you do nothing wrong, you don't need a good memory. Common sense says that when something scares you as he says it did him, you certainly don't go right back to it once you've gotten yourself out of harms way. Common sense says that IF in fact this was "self defense", by definition, the dog would have to have been the aggressor and therefore the "victim" would have signs of being a victim, i.e. blood, bite wounds, scratches, etc.

The police didn't believe his story because obviously the evidence and common sense pointed towards a different scenario. Again, had this been a case of man vs man, where the police find a person stabbed to death, they find a pool of blood AND a knife in someone's yard, the yard owner denies then recants and says it's self-defense but says he went into the house to get the knife to come BACK outside to stab someone HE was "afraid" of........Do you know what would happen to that person? Murder 1 or voluntary manslaughter is what.

I personally have had some very bad experiances with both peoples and animals being on my personal property. I have also had bad family experiances with family members and dogs, pit bulls and chows in particular.

Which would probably explain your position towards dogs.

I also belive that if there is something that is on your property that you dont want there you should have the right to remove it however you see fit.

So, if your 2 yr old child wonders into my yard after I've told you 10 times not to let them do it.....I can pick that child up and shoot it???? :confused:

Common sense should prevail no matter what the situation. If it's a rabid dog trying to bite your children or family, I follow. If it's a dog wondering up to your house and it's merely a nuisance, I don't agree at all. Even on your property you have to follow laws and common sense.

All of these things combined mean that i would have likely called animal control and let them deal with the dog, especially if i knew it wasnt a danger to the community.

Exactly. Why would someone go into their house where it's "safe" only to later come back out with a weapon??? The dog can't open a locked door. It's not the movies here. That wasn't Cujo breaking down a door to get in. If the dog is trying to hurt you or your family, then take him out. If you can get away, let the authorities handle it.

the only part of your defense that i dont buy is the part where you say he shouldnt have hurt a dog that had not been known to be violent or whatever in the past... he was only there 10 days and had not meet the owner, and i would guess the dog either... just wanted to point that out.

Again, common sense dictates that evidence speaks louder than words. The man SAYS the dog did this and that. Evidence shows something different. Had he been actually bitten or mauled, that's one thing. But to merely been "scared" yet gotten to safety only to come back and stab the same thing you just got away from that's soooo scary????? Makes no sense at all. If it doesn't make sense, it's not true IMO.

Could the dog have growled at him? Sure.
Could the dog have startled him in the dark? Sure.
Could the dog of ran up to him and scared him? Sure.

The 2 nails on this guys coffin IMO are that even though any of those things could've happened he still A: blatantly LIED to everyone (which IMO is a sign of guilt) and B: he admitted to getting to safety only to come back and finish the job. To me, that is unacceptable and uncalled for. I see absolutely no defense to either of those two points in this scenario. Therefore, IMO he's just as guilty of breaking the law as any murderer. IMO he killed an animal in cold blood. What reason? Only he can clear that up.

I still respect your opinion. Just don't agree with some of it.

[Spyder]

I cant keep up with all your spiffy quoting it's to much work lol.

i think that i had a hard time conveing what i mean in text on the internet.. when dude came back out of his safe home after escaping a "dangerous" situation he basically said "the dog scared me but not that bad" i saw that when i first read it and knew he was full of shit from that point on. that wasnt the point of my post and i dont think i made it clear enough on certain points.. (the ones you argued as luck would have it) I explained to you what i would have done in that situation.

if a 2 year old child that wanders into your yard after you have said something 10 times should not be there because the parents (or dog owners) should not let the child (or animal) walk around with out a stroller (or leesh) also realize when you are saying this that a 2 year old child has never wandered into MY yard and attacked my sister while biteing her on the face and leaving perminate scars all over her. a 2 year old has never tried to KILL anyone that i know of, dogs (not ever getting into the what are "good" and "bad" dogs debate here..)

i guess what im trying to say is things like this could not and would not happen if the respective owners and parents would actually do what they are suppose to. and if they cant they need to not have childern or pets..

Awaiting responce.

[Julio]

Again, common sense dictates that evidence speaks louder than words.

So what happened with OJ?

[4dmin]

if the guy didn't go back and inside to get a knife then it would of been defense but since the psycho came out and stabbed the dog its murder!!!

[HyPer50]

It sucks the dog died... I didn't read the entire story, but did it explain what the pit bull was doing out of the ladys yard without a leash? I mean, I've met some very friendly pit bulls... but if I saw some pitbull I had never seen before in my yard with no owner in sight, I would be a bit tentative also... But I agree, if the guy went inside, he was safe. no need to go back outside.

[DreamerTheresa]

I DO agree it was wrong of her to not have her dog on a leash (and she should be fined accordingly).
But it was WRONG to kill that dog.

[Spyder]

I guess once you sit there and watch a dog throw your sister around on the ground like she is a rag doll when there is nothing that you can do to stop it you have a different take on dogs.

Again as i have said in this thread several times, i dont at all disagree that he was WRONG for going back outside and then murdering the dog, it wasnt that vicious if he was able to make it back in the house in once piece. I just dont like to take chances anymore is all.. going back outside IS taking a chance imo.

[Jaimecbr900]

I kinda figured something horrific like that was what was the basis of your feelings about dogs. Like I said, it's understandable.

Just remember though, dogs are like guns in a way. People want to make out like "guns", the little hunk of steel that doesn't do anything by itself, are the "bad" guy. They aren't. They do nothing w/o somebody doing it. Well, dogs are a little like that in that unscrupulous owners turn out dogs that can't behave. It's not the dog's fault nor the breed. It's the owner who taught the dog that way or the owner who inbred the dog and caused problems. I've seen some of the most viscious dogs that are babies around their owners. Those can be trouble sometimes, other times they are perfectly fine. I've seen dogs that are viscious around everybody and everything. Those are traumatized dogs. I've also seen the exact same breed of dogs be the most gentle and beautifully behaved animals ever.

Which goes to show that it's not the breed but the breeder/owner that makes a breed what it is. Good or bad. I truly believe that the owner of a dog makes a huge difference in how that dog behaves.

Sorry to hear about your little sis BTW.

[Spyder]

I kinda figured something horrific like that was what was the basis of your feelings about dogs. Like I said, it's understandable.

Just remember though, dogs are like guns in a way. People want to make out like "guns", the little hunk of steel that doesn't do anything by itself, are the "bad" guy. They aren't. They do nothing w/o somebody doing it. Well, dogs are a little like that in that unscrupulous owners turn out dogs that can't behave. It's not the dog's fault nor the breed. It's the owner who taught the dog that way or the owner who inbred the dog and caused problems. I've seen some of the most viscious dogs that are babies around their owners. Those can be trouble sometimes, other times they are perfectly fine. I've seen dogs that are viscious around everybody and everything. Those are traumatized dogs. I've also seen the exact same breed of dogs be the most gentle and beautifully behaved animals ever.

Which goes to show that it's not the breed but the breeder/owner that makes a breed what it is. Good or bad. I truly believe that the owner of a dog makes a huge difference in how that dog behaves.

Sorry to hear about your little sis BTW.

i understand exactly what you say here i just wanted to point out (as im sure you now understand why) that its a little difficult for someone like me to just wait and see if a dog is a good one or a bad one, especially when there is a child involved i seek shelter no matter how "sissy" or whatever that seems. better safe then sorry.

And thanks for careing about my little sis.. she has recovered pretty nicely but still if you know what you are looking for it is a constant reminder.

[DreamerTheresa]

I'm hoping the owner of the dog in question was held accountable for her medical bills. And then shot. =P

[Spyder]

I'm hoping the owner of the dog in question was held accountable for her medical bills. And then shot. =P

They were held accountable for the medical bills and my sister was awarded a very very small settlement, the dog was then put down. unfortunatly the responsible party was not shot.. lol.

[DreamerTheresa]

Small settlement? Sad. Owners of viscious dogs need to be held more accountable. The dog didn't up and just suddenly become aggressive overnight, there was something they did/didn't do to let that happen.


Again, my condolances, and I hope that eventually you won't hate doggies so much.


(Then again... I STILL hate monkeys... and was attacked by one when I was little.... so I sympathise. True story.)

[trythefly]

stiffest penalties possible for this wanker!

That means he will go to jail for about 2 years at best..... fukin a!