Killing a Vicioius Dog Must Not Be Prosecuted As a Crime

In Accrington, the city north of Manchester, England, two bullmastiffs that inflicted “life changing” injuries to a teenager where held at bay by 60 riot police for 24 hours before the dogs were finally tranquilized and destroyed. The owner of the dogs was arrested on suspicion of possessing a banned dog. (For the article, click here.)

The issue this raises is how carefully the authorities and victims of dog attacks must treat vicious dogs. I have been involved in a number of cases where vicious dogs that injured people were killed on the spot. In some cases the person doing the killing was regarded as a hero, while in others even police officers found themselves under investigation for animal cruelty.

Years ago if you killed a burglar in your home you still could be the subject of a murder investigation, until in many places laws were passed stating that it was presumed that you were acting reasonably in self-defense. The same assumption should apply when any person kills a dog within a reasonable time after the dog behaved viciously.

It is a well-known fact that police are too busy chasing criminals to also chase dogs, and that there are only a minuscule number of animal control officers throughout the entire country. Citizens have to protect themselves and their families and their communities from vicious dogs. There should be no fear of being prosecuted when a person does this. And no community should have to employ 60 riot police for 24 hours of overtime to kill vicious dogs that tried to murder a teenager.

Adopting-Out a Known Dangerous Dog Should Be a Crime

From official sources as well as whistle-blowers, I have learned that a small, small number of adoption organizations are taking custody of dogs that the public authorities have declared to be dangerous and placing those dogs in the homes of unsuspecting families including those with small children. The rationale for this practice is that all dogs supposedly will behave safely if they are loved enough, thereby justifying the placement of the dogs in households with kids.

I believe that such adoptions are misguided, dangerous and should be prosecuted as crimes. There is no justification for exposing people to vicious dogs, especially when the potential victims include children and the elderly. Adopting-out a vicious dog also means condemning to death another dog in the same shelter that never hurt a person.

Many of the organizations that engage in this wrongful behavior have received tax-exempt status. Since there is no beneficial public purpose to be served by these groups, they should not be effectively supported by the taxpayers. In other words, they should not exist at all, let alone be entitled to accept donations that pay for their dangerous, immoral activities.

One of the worst ramifications of these practices is that they cast a shadow over the work of legitimate rescues and shelters. Let me repeat myself in saying that this is a small, small number of rescue groups. I admire and support the legitimate ones that conduct themselves ethically and do not knowingly expose the public to unnecessary risks. They make up the overwhelming majority, and they are entitled to our gratitude. But every occupation or endeavor has a few “bad eggs,” and the people who intentionally and knowingly endanger children by putting known vicious dogs into loving homes must be stopped.

In the past two years, I have won several large cases against government agencies that unconscionably neglected to take known vicious dogs off our streets. In one such instance, the animal control department of Knox County, Tennessee had, itself, officially designated several pit bulls to be dangerous, but then failed to remove them, resulting in the lengthy, horrific killing of a young woman, Jennifer Lowe. In other cases, innocent pedestrians have been mauled by packs of domestic dogs that were known to roam at large, or even wild dogs that were known to do the same. Next year I hope to bring to light the dangerous activities of these few adoption organizations that intentionally conceal the background of dogs that the authorities previously declared to be vicious. The other 99.9% of the adoption, rescue and shelter groups will continue to have my support and gratitude.

Shots Fired – Police and Prosecutors “Lose the Paperwork”

The public is entitled to safe streets. Without a doubt, one who will try to kill you or your children should be the first priority of law enforcement authorities. When the potential killer is a vicious dog, however, we are seeing unconscionable lapses on the part of animal control, police and prosecutors.

The latest story comes to me from Delaware County, Ohio. Last December, pit bulls attacked a man on the street and police had to shoot at them. They got away but their owner was identified. Police reports were filed but the prosecutor’s office said the same were not received. Then in April, the same dogs attacked a woman standing on her front porch and police had to shoot at the dogs again. This time, charges were filed — but too late to protect the second victim.

For all we know, there could be a good explanation as to why this prosecution did not go forward in December. At this time, however, the public has reason to question whether the police and prosecutors are performing at adequate levels with regard to dangerous dogs. The public needs to know that someone is monitoring the performance of the people who were entrusted with the safety of the community.

A couple of years ago, I was contacted by the family of Jennifer Lowe, a 21-year-old young lady who was mauled to death by pit bulls that savaged her for more than 30 minutes. It turned out that sheriffs had shot at the dogs in the past, the animal control department had declared the dogs to be vicious, but law enforcement officers then took no steps that would have saved Jennifer from her brutal fate. As a result, the renowned Tennessee lawyer Wayne A. Ritche II and I sued several parties including the County of Knox, Tennessee, because of the inactions of the Knox County Sheriff’s Department and Knox County Animal Control. Following a detailed judicial evaluation of the case, Knox County offered a confidential settlement which was acceptable to Jennifer’s family.

Since then I have been pursuing similar cases against the authorities in other areas of the country. The lesson that public officials must learn from these lawsuits is that they must take vicious dogs out of the hands of irresponsible dog owners and off our streets. The dangerous dog laws must be enforced. If the authorities fail us in this important duty, the victims will have their day in court.

Parents Face Charges After Their Pit Bull Severely Injures Their Son

Parents are facing criminal prosecution in some cases when their dogs injure their children. Melissa Fields and her boyfriend, Steve Durbin, of Trenton, Ohio, are co-owners of the female dog that attacked their son on Aug. 10. Both are charged with failure to confine a vicious dog, failure to license the dog and failure to obtain liability insurance. The 1-year-old boy suffered serious injuries to his face and head.

I do not know the details of this particular incident but am pleased to know that, when circumstances warrant it, prosecutors are willing to file charges against parents whose dogs injure their children. We know that children are the primary victims of vicious dogs. We also know that when a child is killed a dog, it is almost always a dog that belonged to his parents. (See the data for the first 9 months of 2010, on the home page of www.dogbitelaw.com.) Clearly there are people who put their taste for dogs (particularly the more aggressive types) over the welfare of their children. This has to stop.

Dog Owner’s Conviction for Murder Upheld – the Diane Whipple Case Again

The most famous defendant in a dog bite case has been found guilty again. Marjorie Knoller was the woman whose Presa Canario dogs savagely killed Diane Whipple in 2001. A jury in Los Angeles found Knoller guilty of every charge she was indicted for, including second degree murder. After the trial judge threw out the murder conviction, the case went back and forth on appeal. Once more, however, the courts have ruled against her. By taking her dogs out of her apartment on that fatal day, she “deliberately engaged in behavior that was a danger to human life.” On that ground, her conviction was upheld, and she faces 15 years to life in prison.

Knoller’s dogs had never bitten anyone. However, they had lunged, snapped and exhibited clear signs that they possessed a vicious temperament. Additionally, these were Presa Canario dogs — large, cattle-herding dogs that are regarded by many as being dangerous. The prosecutor conducted a “breed specific prosecution” in which he told the jury that Knoller’s crime happened minutes before her dogs attacked Whipple; he said the crime consisted of just taking those dogs outside Knoller’s apartment.

Those of you who own pit bulls and other dogs regarded as being dangerous have to take note of the Diane Whipple case. Even if your dogs have never bitten anyone, but have lunged, snapped and exhibited signs of aggression, you can find yourself facing the wrath of your community if they hurt or kill a person. In my book, there is no reason to take such a risk.