It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FACEBOOK rushes to defense of dog that mauled 4-year-old boy...

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Hello ATS!

I don't know what to say about this. This really confuses me.
(I have searched quite a bit for this topic and did not see it listed)

A 4 year old boy walked up to a dog and picks up his bone. The dog mauls the 4 year old and does horrible damage to his face, and people are actually raising money and awarness to keep the dog from being put down.

The Story


This Feb. 2014 photo provided by Flor Medrano shows Kevin Vicente in Phoenix, Ariz. Four-year-old Kevin Vicente’s road to recovery after a dog mauling on Feb. 20, 2014, has ignited thousands of impassioned pleas, not just not for him. The animal behind the attack is now the object of a Facebook page that has garnered more than 39,000 likes on Facebook. The fate of Mickey the pit bull will ultimately be decided in a court hearing March 25 in Phoenix. Guadalupe Villa, who was at the scene of the attack, has filed a vicious-animal petition to have the dog put down. Doctors say the attack has left the boy unable to swallow properly or open one eye. They say Kevin faces months, if not years, of reconstructive surgery.(AP Photo/)


So people are really standing up for this dog. They believe the problem is with the person caring for this dog. On some part, I can understand that the babysitter should have been watching the child more closely, but if there is a dog on this property that has the potentual to hurt someone else, then it should not be there in the first place, and should be somewhere where it can not do harm to others. It would be best under the sole care of an adult that can manage such a pet or put down because no such place can be found. Having such an animal around young children is not a good idea.


A municipal court judge could rule at a March 25 hearing on whether Mickey, a pit bull that bit Kevin Vicente in the face, should be euthanized. Kevin received injuries that will require, according to doctors, months and possibly years of reconstructive surgeries.


This child will be scarred for life over this. At 4 years old, he had no idea what he was doing. Still, people feel the dog should be spared because they believe the problem lies elswhere. Sympathisers for the beast say that they are not choosing the dog over the child, but it seems that's exactly what they are doing. One commenter even said:

Guest •7 hours ago
"I value a dogs life more than a child's, especially a Mexican child. "

How racist!


Supporters say the campaign doesn't mean they value the dog's life above the child's.

"This is not Kevin versus Mickey," said attorney John Schill, who is representing the dog in the court petition. "Having Mickey killed is not going to take away Kevin's pain or injuries. The only thing this is going to do is kill a poor, innocent dog."


Innocent? This dog seems hardly the innocent type. To add salt to the wound, the people have already raised almost $6,000 to support the dog. What happened to people raising money to help this child with his medical bills? Seriously? The dog??


"But for adults involved, this never would have happened," Schill said. "They're trying to put all the blame on Mickey."


I hardly think that adults being involved would have stopped this dog from being prone to ripping up a child!


Kevin was hospitalized at Maricopa Medical Center with a broken eye socket, cheek bone and lower jaw bone, according to doctors.

Dr. Salvatore Lettieri, a Mayo Clinic physician and chief of cosmetic surgery at Maricopa Medical Center, said he was able to fix the broken bones and reattach the muscles that allow Kevin to open and close his eye.

"He still can't open his eye. We'll need to fix the tear duct drainage system — that is if he makes tears," Lettieri said.


I'm sorry ATS. Normally I would report this without opinions and state only the facts but it was too hard in this case. This has really gotten to me that people really act this way.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   


but if there is a dog on this property that has the potential to hurt someone else, then it should not be there in the first place, and should be somewhere where it can not do harm to others.


This is any dog, no matter what breed.

I believe in this case, the dog should be put down. But the dog, the babysitter, the parents and the child (a little) are to blame.



edit on 17-3-2014 by chiefsmom because: clarify


+11 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I'm aghast how retarded some people are--having more sympathy for a dog than a mauled child. I'd put the dog down myself.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


No one is responsible except the dog owner. It isn't up to the babysitter to control another's animal and nor is it the child's fault - the fact you insinuated that a 4 year old could even contemplate the risks with dogs is just crass.

Shoot the dog.


+24 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
It's not the dog's fault. As was clearly stated in the op, the child was in the act of picking up the dogs bone. I dare you to name any breed of dog that's just going to let someone walk up it take it's food. That dog doesn't know that child meant no harm, all it knows is that there was an immediate threat to it's food source and acted accordingly. Just as most everyone here happily claims to have no problem putting a bullet in a wanna be thief, so to did the dog protect his/her property ( by any means necessary ).
edit on 17-3-2014 by DexteramLucifer because: one to many of the same word


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I think the main issue here is that the parents/guardians were negligent. The issue is not that the dog mauled the child, as it was purely reactionary. Our main effort should be towards putting responsibility and liability in the hands of the legal/current guardian... not the dog. A dog is a deadly animal. Doesn't matter what breed, or the supposed temperament of the animal... a dog can kill a person. That is a massive responsibility, that our society under-appreciates terribly.

If a child drank paint thinner off the counter, is the issue that paint thinner is dangerous or is the issue that a guardian didn't prevent it? The paint thinner was purchased and transported by an adult, and was put there by an adult, and then left with the child. Accident or not, it is negligence. I argue that it is exactly the same with a dog. Again, forget about whether or not the dog should be put down. Just consider that it is entirely the guardian's fault that this happened. Any dog savvy person will tell you that a small child around a large dog taking the dog's toy is a seriously #ed up situation that could go wrong a million different ways. It is incredibly reckless to enable such a situation to come about.

This was entirely preventable, and is not the fault of the child or the dog.

Edit: Just to clarify, I absolute love dogs. I do not think that they are "vicious animals" or anything like that. I am of the mind that an owner needs to be legally responsible for their dog's actions. Dogs are complex, dogs are simple, and dogs are beautiful... but they are not responsible for their actions. They are bred, bought and owned. They are a product of their environment. An adult decides to bring these beautiful things into their home, and so they need to be ENTIRELY responsible for whatever happens.

Edit2: Also, I feel bad for the guardian[s] and the child. I am not saying that the guardians are bad. People make mistakes, and a surprising number of people [even in the first world] are incredibly uneducated when it comes to owning dogs. Our society has failed us such that we fail our little four legged friends.
edit on 17-3-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

DexteramLucifer
It's not the dog's fault. As was clearly stated in the op, the child was in the act of picking up the dogs bone. I dare you to name any breed of dog that's just going to let someone walk up it take it's food. That dog doesn't know that child meant no harm, all it knows is that there was an immediate threat to it's food source and acted accordingly. Just as most everyone here happily claims to have no problem putting a bullet in a wanna be thief, so to did the dog protect his/her property ( by any means necessary ).
edit on 17-3-2014 by DexteramLucifer because: one to many of the same word


I agree with you entirely!
This IS the fault of the adukts, not the dog. I've had dogs and children and I always taught them to have respect for the dog, and we never had any problems. Other members of my family have had dogs and children too, and the same rules applied, RESPECT the dog!
If parents want to have a dog while they have young children THEY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE.

Free the dog - Lock up the adults!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

LeviWardrobe
I think the main issue here is that the parents/guardians were negligent. The issue is not that the dog mauled the child, as it was purely reactionary. Our main effort should be towards putting responsibility and liability in the hands of the legal/current guardian... not the dog. A dog is a deadly animal. Doesn't matter what breed, or the supposed temperament of the animal... a dog can kill a person. That is a massive responsibility, that our society under-appreciates terribly.

If a child drank paint thinner off the counter, is the issue that paint thinner is dangerous or is the issue that a guardian didn't prevent it? The paint thinner was purchased and transported by an adult, and was put there by an adult, and then left with the child. Accident or not, it is negligence. I argue that it is exactly the same with a dog. Again, forget about whether or not the dog should be put down. Just consider that it is entirely the guardian's fault that this happened. Any dog savvy person will tell you that a small child around a large dog taking the dog's toy is a seriously #ed up situation that could go wrong a million different ways. It is incredibly reckless to enable such a situation to come about.

This was entirely preventable, and is not the fault of the child or the dog.

Edit: Just to clarify, I absolute love dogs. I do not think that they are "vicious animals" or anything like that. I am of the mind that an owner needs to be legally responsible for their dog's actions. Dogs are complex, dogs are simple, and dogs are beautiful... but they are not responsible for their actions. They are bred, bought and owned. They are a product of their environment. An adult decides to bring these beautiful things into their home, and so they need to be ENTIRELY responsible for whatever happens.

edit on 17-3-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)


Very well put Sir



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
There is a fine line between the pet’s life and the human life. What if the kid lost his life during this? Would it be the same?

Pet owner is responsible for the action of his/her pet no matter the race or type (could be anaconda or crocodile for heaven sake).

Shoot the damn dog there is no (this is my personal bone contests).



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I'm not sure that the adults should be "locked up". I think that our society ignores these events time and time again, when they should be taking it as a sign that we need to educate people about owning dogs. I think that the guardians should have to attend mandatory dog training and dog safety classes or else be banned from owning a dog. In fact, I think everyone who buys/adopts a dog should be required to attend a day/weekend course on dog safety, or at least be given a little handbook or something with what they need to know. It is insane that a person can just walk out of a place with a 120lb animal, and bring it into his/her home. No training, no follow up. Ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Shoot the dog, and then ban the parents from EVER owning another one.
Young children and dogs should NEVER, EVER be allowed to interact without adult supervision.
Allow a dog to have a bone with a four year old in the room without supervision? Recipe for disaster.
edit on 1u88America/Chicago311 by nugget1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It seems like I hear about this all too often. Usually with pit bulls. I'm sure the media plays a huge part in our fear of them, and I'm sure most other attacks by other breeds go unreported, but this is 100% the owners fault for putting faith in a dog that was bred for protection and fighting.

What I don't understand is how these parents side with dogs. I know somebody who if their dog bit you, she would rationalize it down to being 100% your fault every time even if you did nothing to instigate it.

I'm so sick of these stories. It goes for all breeds. Pure negligence on the parents behalf. I bet the people in this Facebook group wouldn't be so quick to join if it was their 4 year old. And if they were well then f*+# me...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
What kind of person would want to protect a dog that attacks a child because the kid picked up it's bone? If the dog had killed the child would these people be saying oh well that's what you get for taking a dogs bone. A dog that attacks a child should be put down. If I were this child's parent the first thing I would have done after seeing that my child was ok is to put a bullet through that dogs head.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I didn't see it in the article so I'll ask. Was this dog a member of the boys household or did it belong to someone else? IF the dog was chained up on the property of someone else then it is the babysitter's fault all the way. I'm curious as to why this info isn't in the article.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Dogs know the difference between kids and adults. That dog has problems.

My golden retriever suffered far worse from my son and it understood that my son meant him no harm...not a threat.

Owners of these aggressive dogs should start being charged accordingly (i.e. kills someone, owners get charged for murder). Maybe then people can quit with the excuses and truly take responsibility for owning a dangerous animal.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Pitt Bull again....When will people learn


These dogs are not bread to be hang bag dogs, cute little things to keep around the house for kids to play with. Their bred for violence, to protect their keeper and their selves.

People saying it isn't the dogs faulty, Ok all well and good. But it is the owners fault, the dog shouldn't be around children. People need to be aware of what temperament their dog breed has before going and buying one because too many times does thing like this happen. The owner should be made accountable for the damage their dog has done to this child.

And to the absolute #ing idiot who partly blamed this on the child. Go sit a dark room for a few days mate and think about what the # your're saying because you're talking #. I'#m sure 4 years old have something better on their minds rather then evaluating the chances of the dog attacking them based on their breed and temperament
wtf
edit on 17-3-2014 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
Dogs know the difference between kids and adults. That dog has problems.

My golden retriever suffered far worse from my son and it understood that my son meant him no harm...not a threat.

Owners of these aggressive dogs should start being charged accordingly (i.e. kills someone, owners get charged for murder). Maybe then people can quit with the excuses and truly take responsibility for owning a dangerous animal.


I agree, my dogs knows this as well. Hence my question about who the dog belongs to. I, and my son do not assume that a, for example, neighbors dog knows the difference.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 


You, sir sound like a responsible dog owner.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

XTexan
I didn't see it in the article so I'll ask. Was this dog a member of the boys household or did it belong to someone else? IF the dog was chained up on the property of someone else then it is the babysitter's fault all the way. I'm curious as to why this info isn't in the article.



On Feb. 20, a 4-year-old boy in Phoenix, Ariz., was badly injured after he entered a neighbor's yard and picked up a bone lying near a 5-year-old pit bull.
Cleveland.com article - Source

Here is the answer to your question...and no... it was not in the OP's sourced article.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

LeviWardrobe A dog is a deadly animal. Doesn't matter what breed, or the supposed temperament of the animal... a dog can kill a person.


Completely disagree with this statement sorry.

You're telling me that a Yorkshire terrier or something even like a border collie could inflict the same damage as a Pit Bull or a Bullmastiff? They wouldn't even act the same way given the circumstances, dogs are bred for hundreds of years to act a certain way and dogs like Pitbulls aint nothing to # with. I'd even argue that size has no relation to whether the dog would inflict damage, just look at Great Danes for example, their beasty but no way would one ever do something like this, because they haven't been bred to act that way.

The breed of a dog is key to what you want it for. You don't want to go and buy a #ing attack dog if your have children or live near them, even if you live near them then be responsible for them at all times (like you stated)




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join