Animation Source Forums

Yeah, I totally agree with you. And to others, that pitbull was NOT a puppy, if he was big enough to chew a child's leg to pieces, he had to have been at least 5 to 6 months old, and that's like breeding time for ALL dogs.

If the parents were 'crackheads' then surely it is their fault and not the dog's fault? The parents obviously were stupid to leave a kid with that kind of illness alone with a teething puppy.

I don't agree with the dog being put down - any dog can be trained. It was a very, very strange circumstance though.. do you have a link to where you read this, Emily? I can't imagine a dog chewing a kid's leg during teething. I know that a person I met whilst on holiday once had a Jack Russell dog that chewed up their floor... but as for chewing a leg, I find that hard to believe.

Thats could that they put the Pitt Bull to sleep because I heard lots them killed people before and when he grew big he probably would kill that little boy that got his leg chewed up by the Pitt Bull.

Starsky:I agree with you too but not the Pitt Bull not being put to sleep and the parents were not 'crackheads.'

Even though I love dogs and I don't want him to be put to sleep he still should be put to sleep.

Let's make something clear here. It wasn't the dog's fault. It is never, ever, under any circumstances the dog's fault. A dog is an animal with no concept of human law or right and wrong. You can teach a dog to associate action with reaction; this is called training them. That's why dogs are domesticated and don't just run wild, attacking things at random, as a lion or a wildcat would if you tried to keep it as a pet. But a dog can never and will never have an intrinsic interior knowledge of the difference between right and wrong or good and bad. Heck, some people don't have an intrinsic interior knowledge of good and bad. When a dog does something "bad" it is because of poor training or misuse, not because the dog woke up and decided Say, I think I'll do something evil today!.

So, no matter what the dog did, it could not possibly be his or her fault. This does not under any circumstances mean that the dog should not be put down. There are laws against dogs that bite: a dog that will bite is a vicious animal. These laws are in place for a reason, and that reason is not simply because legislators are mean, animal haters who like to kill dogs for kicks on a Friday night. An animal that has bitten a human being, whether it was intentional or not, to the degree that the human was severely maimed, is likely to do it again. That's just the way that it works. It doesn't matter if you can breed it out them, or train it out of them, or whatever. A dog that is vicious once is likely to be vicious again. It doesn't matter if that is your personal experience with dogs or not: it is a fact.

A dog that bites must be put down for reasons of public safety. Are the owners at fault? Absolutely. They ought to be punished. But because one is punishing the dog or the owners, that does not mutually exclude the other from being punished.

Also, I agree with Ronno Fanatic in the fact that this puppy was probably considerably older than a teething puppy. A puppy cannot get a kid's leg into it's mouth, let alone chew it to shreds. I've had a puppy gnawing on me, it doesn't really hurt, let alone cause dysfunction to my limbs. This so-called "puppy" must have been at least 6-7 months old. Also, why was the kid, disabled as he was, unable to get the dog to stop chewing on him before the leg became damaged to such a degree? He's just ignorant and didn't notice a dog chewing on him? Or maybe the dog was determined to continue what he was doing and the kid couldn't make him stop. Very many interesting things going on here. So, again, there must be more to this than meets the eye. I seriously doubt that it's as cut and dried as "Puppy was bad, lunatic community demands death by crucifixion", as so many people seem to think.

I can see them putting the dog down if it was older. How old WAS this dog? Was it a puppy or young adult? It seems like there isn't enough facts to this story. Where did you get the info?

Excactly. Personally, since the story seems unlikely and factless, I don't think it's true.

I can understand what you're saying HrryNrrm but I still don't agree with the dog being put to sleep, whether the story is real or not. He/She should have been taken away from the owners and put with a strong handler to train him as a 'foster parent' before being rehomed with a suitable (and above all responsible) family.

I'm not too sure about this one. The dog is obviously dangerous and I really don't think a puppy is capable of chewing a child's leg off. But I don't know much about dogs so I'll keep out of this one. ^^

I tried searching this on Google but the only thing that came up was "Pitbull chews off babies toes!"

Yes, exactly how OLD was that dog? I can't see a tiny puppy being able to do that much harm, unless it wasn't really a puppy.

It seems that that story lacked in proper evidence... it's stupid that people leave their dogs around children... especially untrained dogs. I'd never leave Archie alone with any child under ten. Not because I think that he'd turn on them but it's more that they'd end up either hurting him and him snapping at them or them just generally provoking him.

Mm, I heared that one on a dog site I go on. And it turned out being their ferret.

------


BENTON, La. Dec 20, 2006 (AP)— A woman jailed after four of her infant daughter's toes were gnawed off says the family's pet ferret did it, not their pit bull pup as police had said.

But her husband blames the dog, a city official said.

"The way the bite marks were on her foot, the ferret being out of its cage, I knew it wasn't the dog," Mary Hansche told KTBS-TV on Tuesday.

The month-old girl was injured Dec. 10 as Hansche, 22, and her husband, Christopher Hansche, 26, slept; they woke up when they heard her crying. The parents were jailed in lieu of $50,000 bond each, booked with child desertion and criminal negligence.

The husband had blamed the dog and told police the ferret had been in its cage all night, Bossier City spokesman Mark Natale said Wednesday.

The charges wouldn't change regardless of which pet was involved, Natale said, because the baby "was injured by an animal while in the custody of the parents." The girl has been released from the hospital and is in state custody.

Attorney Pam Smart said she is waiting for results of a hair analysis to back up the couple's statement that they were not using drugs, calling the case a "very unfortunate accident."


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

But, anyways, now I'd like the full story on this pit bull chewing this child's legs.....

Ah.. yeah I just saw the thing about the ferret on another site.

Ah ha! Now the truth comes out. So there was no crippled child with a leg chewed to pieces. There was a toddler with a ferret that bit off her toes. How very interesting.

Actually, they could be 2 different stories all together. I'm in Canada so I can only visit http://www.google.ca so if this happened in the UK or US or somewhere else then I wouldn't be able to get it if I searched.. It still seems untrue though..