It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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/)
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.
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."
"But for adults involved, this never would have happened," Schill said. "They're trying to put all the blame on Mickey."
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.
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.
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 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)
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 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.
Cleveland.com article - Source
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.
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.