Woman sues owners of dog killed by her pit bulls.

[Spectral]

Funny you say that. Every Pit bull owner I've ever known have always stated their reasoning for getting a pit bull was to "prove the stereotype wrong". They aren't any more or less loyal than any other breed, thus choosing the Pit is purposely challenging the mainstream opinion that they're a dangerous breed.

Right, like I said - they're being contrarians. They didn't choose the breed because of anything particularly good about it, but to prove people wrong. That's not a great personality trait.

[araine]

Let me get this straight. She's suing her neighbors because HER dogs attacked her, right after tearing apart her neighbors dog?

???? How is this even making it into court?

America, or should we be more precise it is Texas everything is bigger in Texas even moron dog owners think they can make a payday when there shitty pitbulls go on a spree and mauls innocent victims to death. If anything she should be sued for a million and than some for her failure to keep here shitty pitbull trash under control. but as always she is probably redneck trashorama and got maybe 25 cents to her name and an anti obama sticker on ther 30 yr old pick up truck

[WskyDK]

She was injured by her own dogs. That's the only good part of the story.

Was she? The link was vague as to which dogs attacked her (story didn't mention the other owners having more than one dog)

[Gheld]

All "suing" somebody means is that the court will hear the plaintiffs case. The judge can still dismiss the suit at that point.

[Spectral]

All "suing" somebody means is that the court will hear the plaintiffs case. The judge can still dismiss the suit at that point.

In the idiotic system in the US, it likely means shelling out money for a lawyer for the defendant as well. Loser pays would fix shit like this up in a real hurry.

[Deleted]

If this had been Denmark the 4 pitbulls would have been put to sleep and not just declared dangerous.

[WskyDK]

All "suing" somebody means is that the court will hear the plaintiffs case. The judge can still dismiss the suit at that point.

And can also be used to open up a countersuit in order to pay court/attorney fees.

[Spectral]

If this had been Denmark the 4 pitbulls would have been put to sleep and not just declared dangerous.

Which, of course, is the sensible approach with a putatively domesticated animal that's killed other animals.

[Magpai]

Disbar her lawyer, put the pitbulls down, award the defendant her home.

She has the right to bring forth a suit and to have a lawyer assist her in doing so. Regardless of what a bitch she is and the validity of her lawsuit, the lawyer is not to blame.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, like I said - they're being contrarians. They didn't choose the breed because of anything particularly good about it, but to prove people wrong. That's not a great personality trait.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to dispel popular prejudices.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Disbar her lawyer, put the pitbulls down, award the defendant her home.

This is a very idiotic post that seems done out of emotion.

[ItachiZaku]

it's tragic that his dog was killed, but that has nothing to do with them being pit bulls, it has to do with the shitty owner (which is shown by her actions already), who can't raise a dog, let alone 4...the 'awareness' he is talking about just makes the stigma this breed is suffering of even worse.

Pretty much.

[Deleted]

Except they are perfectly fine. Almost any dog can be a killer if you don't train it properly.

Dog bite statistics say otherwise. http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php

The training part is an excuse made by Pit owners. Yes, some people can train some Pits, but as a rule of thumb they are a more agressive and dangerous breed than most.

[Fahrenheit]

Let me get his straight.

Plaintiff's dogs, trespassed into neighbor's yard and killed the neighbor's dog on the neighbor's property.
Plaintiff was injured by her own dogs during their blood crazed frenzy.
Plaintiff is suing the dead dog's owner because he didn't secure his dog, despite the fact that the dog was killed on it's owner's property by her trespassing dogs.

Ahh... what?

The judge shouldn't ever hear this case, he should jus throw it out and hit the plaintiff with frivolous litigation.

This suit is absurd and without merit.

[Stop Pretending]

Was she? The link was vague as to which dogs attacked her (story didn't mention the other owners having more than one dog)

4 pitbulls against 1. I doubt the 1 had much time to attack the owner, as it was being mauled by 4 pieces of shit.

[Tasttey]

Let me get his straight.

Plaintiff's dogs, trespassed into neighbor's yard and killed the neighbor's dog on the neighbor's property.
Plaintiff was injured by her own dogs during their blood crazed frenzy.
Plaintiff is suing the dead dog's owner because he didn't secure his dog, despite the fact that the dog was killed on it's owner's property by her trespassing dogs.

Ahh... what?

The judge shouldn't ever hear this case, he should jus throw it out and hit the plaintiff with frivolous litigation.

This suit is absurd and without merit.

According to her preliminary filing the now dead dog, a beagle, viciously attacked her when she went to retrieve her dogs from the neighbors' yard. Her dogs killed the vicious beast, aka the 10 year old beagle, while defending her. She claims her injuries were caused by the beagle and beagle alone, and that the neighbors are at fault because they did not secure their dog (which she claims they knew was violent) when she entered their yard.

According to news reports concerning the attack the first "defendant" on the scene was the 13 year old daughter who arrived home from school to find her dog being mauled to death by the woman's 4 dogs and the woman screaming at her to call 911 while she attempted to separate and control the animals.

I'm not sure how she gained permission to be on their property or how the "defendants" were to secure their dog when there was apparently no one home during her ingress into their back yard.

[Stop Pretending]

According to her preliminary filing the now dead dog, a beagle, viciously attacked her when she went to retrieve her dogs from the neighbors' yard. Her dogs killed the vicious beast, aka the 10 year old beagle, while defending her. She claims her injuries were caused by the beagle and beagle alone, and that the neighbors are at fault because they did not secure their dog (which she claims they knew was violent) when she entered their yard.

According to news reports concerning the attack the first "defendant" on the scene was the 13 year old daughter who arrived home from school to find her dog being mauled to death by the woman's 4 dogs and the woman screaming at her to call 911 while she attempted to separate and control the animals.

I'm not sure how she gained permission to be on their property or how the "defendants" were to secure their dog when there was apparently no one home during her ingress into their back yard.

Her story is complete BS, how does a dog who is already being attacked by 4 dogs, find the time to attack an owner of the 4 dogs? Her story is full of holes, and she deserves to be slapped.

[Turaska]

What a load of cobblers, just trying to scab some free money, hopefully common sense will prevail within the court room and award her $0.

[shimerra]

Yeah no kidding, when was the last time you saw a headline that said child gets mauled by beagle, or lab, or hell even German Shepherd. When was the last time you heard the owner of a pit bull say "yeah he was a mean fuck" after someone gets ripped to pieces.

That's a stupid, retarded, childish argument. Because you don't see a headline it didn't happen. I remember reading something about the last time national news was going berserk about shark attacks someone pointed out there were actually slightly less deaths by sharks that year then there were on average. But because it made headlines must be true right?

Small dogs like beagles actually bite a lot. Dauchsands are actually one of the worst breeds in terms of aggressive biting. It just doesn't make a headline because if a dauchsand bites you you pop the stupid little rat dog in the mouth but not too hard lest you snap its neck. Chows are worse, german shephards(and I own one) are actually more likely to cause bite trauma than pit bulls, etc etc.

[Ytlayol]

My brain might be afk but this thread title confused me.

[HammondQ]

Removal of guns from the US would reduce gun fatalities by 100% but no one seems to think that's a good idea (and is just as much nonsense as your suggestion)

That is a terrible analogy. A better one might be if 78% of gun deaths were caused one particular brand or model of gun spontaneously exploding, and killing someone who happened to be near it. Then banning "gun X" would be a fine solution.


Or if the Kia Soul was so deadly that 78% of all Auto Deaths were caused by that car even though they only make up 6% of the cars on the road......then YES banning the Kia Soul would be a fine solution.