Just wondering re: Dog mauling case

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

I was just curious to know what you folks think about this verdict in the San Francisco case where the poor girl was killed by the dogs in the hallway. The lady was convicted of murder and her husband convicted of manslaughter.

Here's what I think...I think it was horribly tragic, but do not see murder as being a possible charge. The owners didn't sic the dogs on the lady, but they were negligent in leaving them in the hallway without supervision. I could see sticking a charge of negligent homicide, but murder requires willful intent and personal involvement, and that obviously wasn't the case. I think it opens up a whole new possibly dangerous type of ruling. Like if your kid kills someone you could be charged with murder. What do you think?

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002


Another question, did the decedent have the time and opportunity to move behind a closed door? I have heard this in both directions , yes and no. Unfortunately, the only reports I have seen on the news are all highly charged with emotionalism and therefore cannot be used as a basis of unbiased dissertation. Another unfortunate situation is the ease with which emotionalism forces itself into the judicial arena and jurists are not always bound by the letter of the law in all jurisdictions.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

i think they ought to hang her on the town square. Bob se,ks.

-- Bobco (bobco@kans.com), March 22, 2002.

There were about 30 complaints about her dogs biting or trying to bite: that's why the heavy charges, I think. Because she knew they bit and didn't put them on a leash, try to keep them in, or do anything to stop known biters. I think it is a pretty gray area myself: I'm not entirely happy with murder 2 but there needed to be some kind of serious penalty as their behavior was beyond reckless, and an innocent person is dead.

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), March 22, 2002.

And i also think parents should be responsable for their children till they are of legal age. Bob se,ks.

-- Bobco (bobco@kans.com), March 22, 2002.

If YOU own an animal YOU are responsible for what it does. The woman knew the dogs were a threat, and did nothing about it. The victim paid the ultimate price for the womans' stupidity and recklessness. The dog owner deserves all she got and should get much more. She cost a life and that can never be changed.

I am a little upset because of an incident near me in Elroy, WI. A ten year old was killed by 6 rotweilers while in her friends house. Her body was in pieces all over the house. The house was a filthy pig stye inside because of the dogs. My question is why does someone need to own 6 dogs that are capable of killing children, when they have children in the house? It is ludicrous to say the least.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

Bobco, parents are (at least in civil court--lawsuits) responsible for the actions of their minor children. People are suing the parents of the kids in the Columbine and other school shootings. I've even heard that you can be held civilly liable for actions of people merely staying at your house--say your widowed mother, or your adult child that's staying with you while they're finding work, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PROVIDING A PLACE TO STAY. Another argument, is that if the person is a dependent for tax purposes (say a college student), Mom and Dad are still responsible for their actions. To me that is bizarre. That means to me then you should be able to sue the government for the actions of someone on welfare.

The insurance companies will tell you that, and so far I've not been able to find any basis/laws for that, or laws limiting the owners liability. Maybe someone else knows for sure? I can understand if they're driving your vehicles, but just because they happen to live with you and do something wrong? Of course, in this country you can sue anybody for anything, what is in doubt is whether you will win. Unfortunately, there are greedy lawyers who will sue regardless of merit, and judges who don't have the will to say, "This case is frivolous, I'm throwing it out".

As to the dogs--they were specifically raised to be attack dogs, and therin lies the murder charge. If you own an attack dog, or a dog breed that has been determined to be harmful (I realize that dogs become harmful 99% of the time because of deliberate inbreeding and training-- I do feel sorry for the dog), then if that dog maims or kills someone, you should be held liable, criminally as well as civilly. And the dog should be put down after the first human bite, period.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 22, 2002.

Unfortunately, blame often lies with the victims also. We have a gentleman in our area who has property that is surrounded by an eight foot fence topped with barbed wire barriers. His dogs are contained within his compound and the property is legally posted. Five teenagers decided "it wasn't right" that he owned this property with a stocked fishpond and decided to climb the fence , kill the guard dogs and fish the pond. They didn't bet on the fact that there were more than two guard dogs and found themselves attacked by the other animals. The liberal media did not see fit to address the issues of criminal mischief, tresspassing and destruction of private property, only the "attack" and saying "the children didn't know any better". I agree parents are responsible for their children. They are also responsible for teaching them to use common sense. And anyone should have sense enough to avoid potentially dangerous situations , weather is a dog or a person. True, some breeds of dog are more viscious than others,some sectors of human society are also. Maybe a solution is to eliminate those breeds completely and while we are at it, lets annialate those societies we dislike also. Where should we start. Who goes down first?

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

If it was your daughter who was killed by those dogs in the manner this poor gorl was killed ----I believe they wouldn't have to kill the owners of those dogs/ as I probably would have with my bear hands!!!!!!!!!

-- Sonda in Ks. (sgbruce@birch.net), March 22, 2002.

Jay, so what ultimately happened in that case? Was the owner found guilty or innocent? I have also seen the "teens don't know any better" defense used when they get into what are seen as "attractive nuisances"--like a swimming pool, a neighbor's freezer full of ice cream in the garage, etc. That second one happened to a neighbor of ours, the judge ruled that "teenagers can't read (keep out and no trespassing signs)", and they got away with theft. Ridiculous. I'm thinking that the teens' lawyers in the case you mentioned used "attractive nuisance" as a defense.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 22, 2002.

I would also like to point out that this dog was kept in an apartment house. Probably the apartment owner is also going to be sued (especially since the criminals probably won't have anything to go after after paying the lawyers...).

So, this will also have the effect of making a good case for landlords to not allow pets of any kind (no matter how well trained, except for animals aiding the handicapped) in rental housing, period, which is a shame.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 22, 2002.

I am wondering if many dog owners are going to take their pets to become euthanized, because of this ruling. I have a great watch dog, who wouldn't bite anyone trespassing on our property. He barks like the dickens, but doesn't approach the people too closely.

But what IF I'm wrong and in the future , my dog bites somebody. Should I chance keeping the dog, knowing that this ruling now opens a case of negligent homicide through a remote being? Is it worth a possible MURDER charge?

I'm with Doreen, there should be line drawn so that all of us know the rules BEFORE we get in trouble. Interpretive law is dangerous.

-- j.r. guerra in s. tx. (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), March 22, 2002.

The last I heard there were still appeals being filed. Apparently part of the action against the property owner in addition to the claim against his liability insurance was the claim that the pond had been accesible for 50 years before he secured his perimeters and people "used to go to that pond when the previous owners had it". This was a lame attempt from what I understand. However, the landowner was screwed over under the "boobie trap laws" and the implied liability interpretation for posting " Patrolled by Guard Dog " signs, according to what was explained to me.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

Jay, so then a "beware of dog" sign might also put you at risk....

I personally think that privately held bodies of water (swimming pools, ponds, etc.) should be fenced in some way by the owner and posted (no swimming, etc.) to indicate that it is there, and people don't accidently wander in, especially at night.

Trouble is, all fencing is visual blight to some extent, and while it might keep out a small child (the main reason to fence, imho), no fence commonly available to the average home or business owner is going to keep out someone truly determined to break in.

But, fencing is expensive, and it used to be that people only fenced if 1) they had animals to keep inside the property, or 2) they had bad neighbors, which is getting to be the case more and more. A lot of people simply do not teach their children respect for property boundaries, fenced or not. A lot of people don't entirely go with fencing, but they often will put up painted stakes along the property boundaries, so that the look of "open space" is preserved.

I think in the case you brought up, someone with an agenda is driving the case, not someone with common sense.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 22, 2002.


Your exactly right , thanks to liberal lawmakers, a "beware of dog" sign now also is defined "as having pre-knowledge of ferocity and acceptance of liability" instead of the simple warning for safety that is its intended purpose. Many insurance agents and other authorities advise against the use of those signs and suggest "No Trespassing" signs instead as a more effective approach.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

What has the world come to when someone knowingly treaspasses on your propery and you get sued ????

-- Patty {NY State} (fodfarms@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

Jay, in the case you are stating, it is like suing a homeowner for shooting a perp during a home invasion. Like my Daddy said, Shoot em' dead 'cause you don't want 'em to come back and sue ya."

I think the San Fransisco case is so loaded with emotionalism and hystrionics and politics over "who" the victim was and "who" the the dog owners were, that the truth was lost somewhere.

Personally, I see, wreckless endangerment, willful neglect and manslaughter. Having owned aggressive watchdogs, I cannot imagine living in an apartment with them or letting the dogs out in free access areas, especially, if neighbors had already complained.

If any one of us had lived there, the dog owners probably would've been told, "The next time the dogs looks at me I'm killing it." Of course, it being San Francisco with heavy handgun control, we'd have to beat them to death with a ball bat.

Bob, the little girl in WI. is such a tragedy! It seems common sense failed every person involved, from the city who never investigated complaints, to the dogowners, who set up and allowed this tragedy, to the mother of the victim for allowing her daughter to visit that house. We can euthanize or jail the whole lot of them but the little girl is still dead and her friend will always have that memory burned into her heart.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 22, 2002.

I have been involved with dog biting incidents with my dogs and have been cleared both times. My sled dogs are either in their kennels or on a chain when I am not having them pulling. Both of the dog bitings involved kids, the first one was my daughters friend,who is 16 at the time and she went to pet one of the dogs while I was in the house and at the time he was chewing on a bone and he just snapped at her hand and broke some skin, according to police they were in the clear because of the ruling here that says if the dogs our bother while eating it is considered being provoke.

The second biting involved my other daughters friend who was 9, and the one dog bit her in the stomach. Police took the dog and after the girl, my daughter and others were questioned,it came out that they were teasing the dogs with sticks and that one little boy that was there had dared the girl to run up and grab its tail. which she try doing and in the process was bit. The police returned the dog the next day. Needless to say my daughter did not listen after all these years to what I have told her and she didn't like be grounded for 2 weeks either.

What do I have now because of that, I have 8" x 10" signs on each kennel that states "BEWARE OF BITING DOGS" and a 2' x 3' sign on my garage going to the kennels stating "DOGS ARE NOT TO BE PLAYED WITH UNLESS SUPERVISE" my daughter or friends are not allow backed by the dogs UNLESS I am there also. The police say this is enough to cover me.

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), March 22, 2002.

Read what the Old Testament has to say about bulls that gore people. If a bull happens to gore and kill someone, never having doen it before, then the bull is killed. But- if the bull has been known to gore people in the past, and kills someone, when it is known that the bull was in the habit of acting this way, then the owner is guilty of murder. The dog situation seems very similar to that.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 22, 2002.

how does the bull get to gore someone more than once??? HELLOOOOOOOooooooooooo

-- Stan (sopal@net-pert.com), March 22, 2002.


Thats one of those things to make you go "Mmmm" :>)

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

I agree with rebekka, ( I think I spelled that wrong, my apologies). To stan and Jay, how does a bull get to gore someone twice, The same way a dog attacks 30 people. This is just my opinion, and being a christian, I take every word of the bible for truth. I would also like to point out one other little tidbit...

Have you ever seen a rodeo?? Lots of bulls, lots of gorings...

-- Kristean Thompson (pigalena_babe@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

Whatever the animal. If YOU own it YOU are responsible for it. Why should someone else be responsible for what your animals do????

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

Yup. Charged with emotion. See, the thing is the definition of murder. I understand being upset over this, but I WANT my dogs to be aggressive...and they aren't:). Now there are a number of things that fit the legal definitions that the couple could have been charged with,as has been stated, but this is just a gross misinterprtation of the English language and as a result, justice. Too much in the way of changing the meaning of words and we no longer are able to make heads or tails of anything.

I had a dog who bit a child when I lived in California. The kid had been told numerous times to not throw things over the fence at him and to not stick his arms through the fence (with a stick in his hand), and he didn't listen. Luckily the mother was there and saw what happened and there were no problems from them as they wanted their kid to learn to mind for his own good. It could have gone the other way. In which case I would have fled the state with my dog and been a fugitive from injustice.

I think the Bible covers it a little differently, Rebekah...I'm sorry, but I am at work and don't have time to check on the actual passages.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 22, 2002.

What Rebekah is referring to is Exodus 21..28 - 29, A bull that kills someone with its horns must be killed and its meat destroyed. The owner isn't responible for the death. Suppose you own a bull that has been in the habit of ATTACKING people but you refuse to fence it in. If that bull kills someone then you and the bull must be put to death by stoning.

So according to that if you willing know that your animal has cause problems and do not do anything about it then you are responible for it if it kills someone. Sounds good to me.

-- TomK(mich) (tjk@cac.net), March 22, 2002.

Laura read this about the girl in WI

Mauston - The couple who owned six Rottweilers that killed a 10-year- old girl had boasted about how aggressive and mean their dogs were, and the dogs had bitten the woman's daughter on several occasions, according to criminal complaints filed Wednesday.

I know I shouldn't have had all those dogs there. . . . I know it was wrong to do. She was just a little girl. - Wayne Hardy, according to criminal complaint Alicia Clark, 10, was attacked by six Rottweilers at a friend's home. The owners, Wayne Hardy and Shanda McCracken, were each charged with homicide resulting from a vicious animal, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment and four counts of child neglect in the Feb. 14 death of Alicia Lynn Clark.

Hardy and McCracken left McCracken's 11-year-old daughter, Melissa, and Alicia alone with the dogs at the couple's house in Elroy, according to the complaints. During the attack, the dogs dragged Alicia through the house and mauled her to death, the complaints say.

If convicted, Hardy could face up to 69 years in prison and McCracken could face up to 38 years. Hardy's charges carry a more severe penalty because he has felony convictions for burglary and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Juneau County District Attorney Dennis Schuh said that the homicide charges were warranted and that he hoped they would send a message to other dog owners.

"People who own dogs need to take responsibility for them," he said. "They need to make sure they're well-trained, adequately socialized and that they behave in an appropriate manner in society." "As (Hardy has) said all along, there was never evidence of these dogs ever causing a problem, not even to his own children," Berkos said.

He added that there was no way of knowing that the dogs were vicious, even though the dogs had bitten people before. "Obviously, anyone who's ever owned a puppy knows that puppies bite, puppies chew," he said. If that's evidence that a dog is vicious, "then anybody with a poodle in the house should be put on notice that it could be vicious," he said.

But the complaints say that several people who know Hardy told police that the dogs' owners were aware that the animals were aggressive and had bragged about their vicious behavior.

According to the complaints:

Mary Ellen Housner, for whom Hardy worked, recalled telling Hardy how friendly her dog was when he boasted that his dogs were mean and couldn't be trusted with anyone but him. He also bragged about the dogs' aggression on several other occasions, she told police.

McCracken laughed while recalling how the dogs had scared someone, another acquaintance, Mary Steinmetz, told police. Steinmetz said a man once approached McCracken's car while one of the dogs was inside, and McCracken said: "If I were you, I would back away from the car, because he will attack you."

Melissa McCracken also told police that dogs killed the family's pet cat in November 2000 while she was home alone with her two brothers.

And two months before the Feb. 14 attack, the Rottweilers had bared their teeth and nipped at Alicia during a sleepover, but they retreated when Melissa yelled at them, Melissa said.

Girl dragged through house On the night of the attack, Melissa said she and Alicia were sitting on a couch, and Alicia was petting one of the four 6-month-old Rottweiler puppies when one of the two adult dogs started attacking her.

Melissa said she tried to kick the dogs off her friend, but Alicia couldn't get away. The dogs dragged the girl into the dining room of the home, where she struggled to her feet before the dogs pulled her down again. They then dragged her into the kitchen, where Melissa said she heard Alicia say "help me" repeatedly. The attack lasted 10 to 15 minutes.

Melissa said she piled clothes onto Alicia's body to try to fool the dogs into thinking that the girl was gone and then guarded her friend's ravaged body until her parents returned home.

When authorities arrived, Shanda McCracken was holding the bathroom door closed and told the coroner that she couldn't let go or the dogs would get out. The dogs growled and barked, and eventually pulled the door off its hinges, according to police.

Hardy was able to contain the dogs, and they were removed from the house about 10:30 p.m. and later killed. A veterinarian reported that the dogs were covered in blood and could not be calmed no matter how gently she spoke to them, the veterinarian said.

When asked later if her dogs had ever shown aggression, Shanda McCracken said: "No, they never done nothing to nobody."

However, Hardy later told police: "I know I shouldn't have had all those dogs there. I know we shouldn't have left Melissa and Alicia there alone. I know it was wrong to do. She was just a little girl. I'm really sorry."

Hardy and McCracken pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor counts of child neglect but did not enter pleas to the felony charges. They were released on $10,000 signature bonds. Both declined to comment as they left the courthouse Wednesday.

Brady scheduled Hardy's preliminary hearing for April 16. McCracken's next court date is June 4.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002.

I can't believe those awful people were even released on bond, especially the one with the prior convictions. Very, very, sad.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 22, 2002.

I will quote it word for word this time- my paraphrased version skewed it a little- Revised English Bible

EX 21:28-30 When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be put to death by stoning, and it's flesh is not to be eaten; the owner of the ox will be free from liability. If, however, the ox has for some time past been a vicious animal, and the owner has been duly warned but has not kept it under control, and the ox kills a man or a woman, then the ox must be stoned to death, and the owner put to death as well. If, however, the penalty is commuted for a money payment, he must pay in redemption for his life whatever is imposed upon him.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 23, 2002.

Thanks, Rebekah.

How sad about that little girl! Man. It's beyond words.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 23, 2002.

As for the woman killed in the apartment house.....It was first reported that the woman had been bragging to her friends that she was going to provoke an attack by the dogs so she could get them and their owner evicted from the apartment house. She was tired of the dogs barking supposedly. The judge supposedly ruled that testamony to this was inadmissible. Seems to me that all pertinent information should have been allowed into court, and the verdict would be subject to appeal. Do I think the dogs should have been kept in an apartment house? No. Do I think their owners should have been charged with murder? No. Negligent homicide would have been a more appropriate charge.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), March 23, 2002.

I'm going to pop up here and ask a question. What about Livestock Guardian Dogs (Anatolians, Great Pyrs, etc.)? These dogs, although they would probably attack a person if necessary to defend their charges, are bred to guard livestock from animal predators such as coyotes. Most are not typically aggressive toward humans but obviously if someone came on their property and attempted to steal or kill sheep, goats, etc., there is going to be a problem. Yet many livestock owners cannot afford NOT to have these dogs. I have heard that there is a slightly different attitude (in courts) toward these dogs, and that posting a LIVESTOCK GUARDIAN DOG ON DUTY sign is looked at differently than the Beware of Dog sign. I definately have my doubts about that, especially in an area that is not overwhelmingly farm/ranch land. Anyone have any facts or statistics on the legal problems associated with keeping these dogs? And yes, I have a personal interest as we are planning on getting a couple GPs. (They are the least aggressive toward humans.) We have occasional coyote problems and frequent stray dog problems, and can't be home all the time to protect our livestock.

I have mixed feelings about this latest court case, but I am greatly concerned that we are rapidly approaching the point where we may not defend ourselves in any manner against any aggressor.

-- Lenette (kigervixen@webtv.net), March 23, 2002.


If people want guard or attack dogs fine, but if they harm anybody in most situations the owner has to be held responsible for the dogs' actions. The woman was attacked and bit to death in the hall of an apartment building. The dogs should not have had access to that place. The owners are reponsible for it. It is a matter of safety and common sense. The little girl in Wisconsin was killed by 6 rottweilers. Who really needs 6 attack dogs??? That is insane.

Livestock guard dogs should not normally pose a threat to anybody anyway. The dogs are there to protect the animals and IF THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED CORRECTLY that is all they will do. However if someone attempts to harm the animals and the dogs cause them harm, so be it.

Dogs have long been the number one complaint to police in most areas of the country. Whether it is their barking, running free, defecating, urinating, threatening, or biting. The point to be made is the dogs need to be under control by the owner. If they are not something must be done to correct the situation.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 23, 2002.

Wake up people!! Whats wrong with some of you???? If i had a dog that i knew could hurt or kill a child the dog would be dead PERIOD!!!

-- Grizz workin near D.C. (southerneagle@yahoo.com), March 23, 2002.

Amen Grizz Bob se,ks.

-- Bobco (bobco@kans.com), March 23, 2002.

Any dog over 15 pounds COULD hurt or kill a child. Any dog, PERIOD could hurt one. Shall we kill all dogs? Just leave the bobble head Taco Bell Chihuaha dashboard ornaments? How bout cats? I was atacked by one, and I needed a tetanus shot and couldn't do my hjob for close tto a week. Let's kill 'em. They hurt me. You guys are getting a bit silly.

I am not saying that any of these owners were in the right, but dogs have a serious purpose for security. What about police dogs? They are trained to attack. Militarily many are trained to kill. Come on, folks. REASON.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 23, 2002.

When a big ol' woofing dog ran up into my little kid's face at the park and the owner said, "It's okay he won't bite" my little kid hollered right back, "ITS GOT TEETH!"

I would never tell anybody that my dog doesn't bite, nor would I ever trust strangers around my dogs. I couldn't possibly predict how the dogs would react to certain behaviors beyond my control. I've caught too many kids AND adults teasing dogs and the only thing I have to control my dog is training and voice command.

Yup, it comes down to personal responsibility of dog owners. You can't blame the dog because he has teeth.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 24, 2002.

I live in Wisconsin, about 10 miles from Elroy, and I know the party that owned the 6 dogs that killed 10 year old Alicia Clark. My opinion is that the dog owners are responsible for the death of that child... but I also think Alicia's parents are somewhat responsible for allowing there child to go to a house that has 6 rottweilers in it. Being a parent myself I would never allow my child to go somewhere with that many dogs, especially knowing that there cat was killed by the dogs. I think the whole thing was irresponsible and all parties should be held responsible for there actions.

-- kris storkel (krisstorkel@yahoo.com), June 25, 2002.

i just wanted to say to some of you who judge without knowing the whole story, first of all the child that was killed by the 6 rottweillers knew the dogs and they new her. infact her favorite one was the one who started the whole attack. this dog was a year old and knew alicia very well. secondly these were not puppies, they were 8 month old dogs, mother 3 years old and a 1 year old dog. we were not aware of the conditions of this house or how the animals behaved. we did not know alicia had been nipped at previously. we were not friends with these people we only knew them because the girls were friends. and most importantly we were never aware that those people took it upon themselves to choose to leave our little girl there alone without our permission. we never left alicia alone and we asummed that other parents gave us the same respect that we gave their children. those children were to young to be left alone even under different circumstances. the only thing we as alicia's parents are guilty for is trusting that they had enough common sence not to leave those children alone. they were only supposed to be going to get the other little girls clothes to spend the night at our house. we found out so much after alicia was killed that many children never told their parents, reason why was because if the parents knew the children would not have able to go to the house agian to visit their friend. and that includes alicia. dont judge me unless you have the full truth, unless your life is so humdrum or so perfect that you have nothing better to do. we take our own blame and guilt without it from you. also incase you are interested in just how awful these people are, before they called 911 they came down and got alicia's father, so he could veiw the aftermath of what the dogs did to his daughter. he went and called 911 himself. these are pictures that will stick in his mind forever . how could a descent parent do that to another parent. obviously know descency or this would have never happened. on top of it there has never been any remorse from any of them no tears no cares. i guess what all of this has taught us is that you trust no one especially when it comes to your children. this will be a lesson we'll be learning painfully, for the rest of our lives

-- tammy shiflett (lipps1966@hotmail.com), November 06, 2002.

Yes......lets get the full story before we place blame on someone we don't even know. I can say I know Alicia Clark's parents very well they are like family to us, their daughters are like neices we will never have. You don't think they blame themselves everyday? Well they do, but the only thing they have to blames themselves for is trusting....trusting their daughter was in the care of parents. Never once did they know Alicia was going to be left alone with her 11 year old friend to babysit the dogs, who in the hell has to babysit dogs in the first place. Never once did they know their daughter was left in that house without any parents there to watch their daughter. My daugter was also left alone with Alicia and the other girl in this house without parents being there, and did they have my permission, the answer is NO. I didn't fine this out intill after Alicia's death along with alot of other parents. So what you are saying there that our kids shouldn't be allowed to go to any friends homes that have dogs?? Instead of placing blame where it doesn't belong why don't we place the blame where it does. There were 2 ADULTS that lived in this house, where the hell were they......going to his parents to feed more Rotts, that they kept out there. Why does it take 2 ADULTS to feed the Rotts, when his parents were there? Why in hell would you leave a 10 years old and a 11 year old to watch 6 dogs? Why not blame them, ohhhhh because it is easier to blame the viticm, but in this case she was a 10 year old little girl who weighed about 68 pounds, but we can't blame her because she is dead, so lets blame the parents. If you are going to make a comment them you better make dame sure you know what the facts are. The facts in this case is this, Alicia went to that house to get her friends clothes so her friend could stay the night. NEVER once did Alicia's dad know that she was staying up there babysitting 6 dogs without parents being there. That is the facts in this story. So get the facts before we blame the parents......haven't they suffered enough....and they still have many court cases to go and have to hear some pretty bad things. I for one know how they blame themselves and how they hurt each and everyday because Alicia isn't there anymore to share things with them. To place the blame on these 2 wonderful people it makes me sick and for you people to blame them, you make me sick too. Don't judge unless you have all the facts in this case. Them 2 ADULTS left them 2 kids there alone with 6 Grown Rotts who should we blame?????? It seemes like a pretty cut and dry case here....Wayne Hardy and Shanda McMracken, those are the people who should take the blame here. I would love to write to anyone of you that want to know what the facts are in this case, because alot of you don't know what the facts are.

-- Jenny Wells (sweety@mwt.net), November 08, 2002.

This is to Grizz of workin' in D.C.

I have a 12 year old German Shepherd. last year, he bit a kid on his bike and the kid got 3 stitches in his butt. Who's fault is that ??? Let me tell you the story. This kid is the town jerk. He'd come to the house and throw rocks, sticks anything he got his hands on at my dog. I have 3 daughters, 15,114,12. Brute is gentle, but protective. We live in a small hamlet in Ontario, Canada. This one day, The kid came up to tease my dog but guess what ??? Brute wasn't on his chain and so the kid got what he deserved. He's lucky he only got bit on the butt. Brute is 130 pounds and had massive muscles. I think Brute gave the kid a warning. Yes, I had to go to court and the judge seen my side of the srory as well as listening to witnesses that know Brute. Brute is a very happy, loved dog and by no means was raised to be mean. Now tell me, if someone was throwing rocks at you, teasing you, hitting you with sticks, would you not retaliate ??? I know I would. Dogs only have one deffence, their teeth. We have hands to defend ourselves. Brute does not bother anybody else in town at any time but as soon as this kid is in sight, Brute growls and his hair stands up. I think the kid should be put down and destroyed for teasing an animal. Let's be fair people. An unproveked attack is one thing, but to constantly tease an animal, on a chain, in his yard is uncalled for. Thank you.

-- Mike (cathysclown39@hotmail.com), August 12, 2003.

I want to know the breed name of the dogs I would never have such huge animals in or around my family

-- nana nagy (snagy60653@aol.com), September 13, 2003.

hullo people

i think the child, no matter how annoying is more precious than the animal

اردو مضامين مجموعه - *urdu language website*

-- Your Full Name (Your Email Address@greenspun.com), September 14, 2003.

shuda gave them life, myself was attacked by a pitt-bull, recieved 32 stitches in the face, soo i have no remorse for owners that are irreponsible, the dog owner got a $500 fine plus a 5 year ban from owning a dog, guess what, her boyfriend can have one in there home as long as its lienced in his name. soo wheres the justice in that, oyah the pitt-bull attacked 2 people before me, 1 child= 15 stitches/ 1 adult 19 stitches /me= 32 stitches

-- zigzag (zigzag_ca2003@yahoo.ca), July 03, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ