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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I received email from a concerned parent about dangerous dogs in the neighborhood. This family
lives in Georgia.

As you might know from reading Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA, Georgia is one
of the “mixed law” states — meaning a state that has a dog bite statute that incorporates the law of
England as it existed on July 4, 1776. About a third of our states use the so-called “one bite law”
(the English law) in one form or another. It has no place in modern America, but it exists
nevertheless.

I always tell people in these states that they can help themselves by making some phone calls.
When the law of your state protects dogs rather than children and seniors (the two groups of
people who are usually the victims of severe dog attacks), you need to get the law changed.

It’s easier than you think.

I assisted in rewriting the dog laws of Tennessee several years ago. It was at the request of one of
their state senators, Doug Jackson. Three people had contacted him about getting the laws
rewritten, he in turn contacted me, I wrote the first draft of 5 bills, and the bills were enacted into
law.

After the new laws were passed, he said to me, “Ken, people don’t realize that it only takes 2 or 3
constituents complaining about something directly to one of our legislators in order for a bill to
get introduced.”

Getting this started in your state is up to you.

That’s like asking the home plate umpire if he would care to say whether the last pitch was a ball or a strike. “Of course,” I told Carlos.

Just an hour before, I walked around a corner at a mall near my house, and what did I almost collide with? A pit bull, sitting on a wall, with a New Year’s Eve party hat on. About 10 feet away, his owner (I assume) was taking photos of him, using a cell phone camera. Although my elbow grazed the dog’s shoulder, the pit just looked at me, far calmer than I was looking at him.

A dog on a wall in a mall. Now, that’s unexpected! Which is why a California court, during the 1950′s, ruled that a store that allows people to bring their dogs can be held liable for any type of accident that the dog causes. In that case, a lady who was shopping either tripped over the dog or got tangled in its leash, but she fell and was badly injured. The court ruled that a store designs its aisles so that people will be looking at merchandise, not checking the floor for pooches and leashes. Consequently, a store can be held liable for negligence if a shopper sustains injury in any encounter with a dog on the premises.

And that’s not all. What about the pee and the poop? What about the shedding? If a customer has an allergy, or is simply afraid of animals, what about that? All things considered, it seems completely unreasonable to allow dogs (and other pets) to come into malls, stores and restaurants. There are only two exceptions: police dogs and service dogs. By law, the latter are allowed everywhere, for a very good reason, namely to assist those people who require help.

Well, the interview ended a few minutes ago. It did not go well. Carlos, his cameraman and I laughed so much that I’m not sure he will be able to use me on the segment. We were laughing at the folly of all this. Not only the pit bull wearing the party hat, but, for example, the ice cream store that gives free ice cream to dogs and little children. What happens when you put an ice cream cone between a dog and a young child who have never met? While the answer (facial injuries for the child, possible euthanasia for the dog) is not funny, the utter stupidity and selfishness of the store is truly laughable.

In my line of work, representing mostly kids who have been bitten on the face by dogs, I have to laugh to keep from crying. I have almost never reviewed a dog attack that was not the fault of the dog owner, whether because the dog was put in the wrong place at the wrong time (a daycare center, a crowded apartment building, on the wall at the mall), or it was not trained or badly cared for, or the owner failed to warn that the dog was injured or sick. Sometimes, however, the fault also stems from another human who is not on the other end of the leash, namely a store manager or a landlord. Essentially, accidents involving dogs are the result of people’s negligence. And sometimes, their sheer folly.

On July 22, 2010, Jacob Bisbee, a two-year-old boy, was killed by his step-grandfather’s pit bulls in Concord, California. The dog owner has been arrested on suspicion of child endangerment and owning a mischievous animal that caused great bodily injury or death, both felonies. (Video of this story by NBC.)

These are the 18th and 19th fatal dog attacks in the USA during 2010. Pit bulls have been responsible for most of the deaths. These arrests underscore the fact that pit bull owners are at risk for criminal prosecution when their dogs injure or kill other people.

Just 48 hours later, a 2-year-old boy (name not released as of this writing) was killed by his parents’ three pit bulls in Concord, California. The death toll by dogs is 19 in the USA so far this year. Pit bulls killed between 11 and 13 of the victims, Rottweilers 4, and Huskys one.

For details about fatalities through June 2010, see Dangerous and Vicious Dogs on www.dogbitelaw.com, particularly the section entitled “Canine Homicides.” For July 2010′s three deaths so far, see the home page of dogbitelaw.com.

Family dogs killed 14 of the 16 dog bite fatalities from January through June 2010. In addition to the 9 children, there were 5 adult victims who were killed by pets living in the decedent’s home or being kept there for some reason.

Pit bulls were identified as the killers in 9 cases, and as the probable killers in two more. Rottweilers were identified in 4 fatalities. A Siberian Husky was identified in one case, and might have been involved in one other. More details are given at Dog Bite Law: Dangerous and Vicious Dogs (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm).

So what’s the lesson from these grim statistics? Clearly, it is that parents must choose an appropriate dog for the household, as well as train and maintain it adequately. Additionally, kids must be closely supervised around dogs.