FREE PADEEEEEEEE!

Time for a celebration!   Padi, the dog that ate the ear off a 4 year old, is FREE!   I know everybody is happy for PADI!

Some back-story on Padi and the other persons of interest:

- Padi the pit mi, er, I mean LAB MIX (wink wink, nudge nudge).
- Dr. Paul Gartenberg, veterinarian.  Padi's owne, er, I mean "pet parent".   Gartenberg allowed Padi to roam free throughout his clinic as a "greeter".
- Cooper Smith, victim.  4 years old.
- Amanda ?, Cooper's babysitter.
- Emily, Gartenberg's daughter.
- Dan Dannheiser, Smith family attorney.

The 10 cent version is this:  Cooper and his babysitter, Amanda, were visiting Gartenberg's office.  Cooper was interacting with Padi, who bit him on the ear.  The injury will require at least 2 reconstructive surgeries.   Cooper was being supervised by Amanda at the time.   This interaction took place with Gartenberg's knowlege.

Typical to a dog attack scenario, or anything involving a dog for that matter, it is difficult to get real "news".  Instead of being given facts, we must endure various canine supremacist narratives shoved down our throats.


Consider this piece from ABC "news".  It starts off with a plea to save the dog, including how sweet and wonderful it was.  Biased much?

As usual, the comments on the above propaganda piece are pure GOLD:

"Euthanize the families lawyer and keep the dog. Fire the baby sitter".   Indeed, isn't it ALWAYS the babysitters fault?   Hell, if an ADULT is attacked by a dog lets just go ahead and blame the babysitter!

"Whip the kids butt and punish the parent for mistreatment of the dog. IF the dog was a greeter it surely was friendly to others.".   Only a dog nutter has the ability to load this much fail into 2 sentences.   They are beyond even self-parody.   Indeed, "whip the kid's butt" because as it turns out, the injury inflicted by the dog was insufficient punishment for not showing proper respect to a dog!   And, of course, there's the usual fail of "if it was nice once, it must have been nice to everybody".  If the dog ever behaved, it always behaved.


The "official" Padi narrative is this:   While being thoroughly ignored by his babysitter, Amanda, Cooper chased Padi into Gartenberg's office.  Cooper proceeded to torment and harass Padi, chasing Padi underneath Gartenberg's desk.  Cooper was behaving very, very dangerously and was indeed threatening the life of the poor, innocent pup.   At that point, Padi had no choice but to defend her very life by inflicting a small nip upon Cooper's ear.   Evil dog haters in county government then proceeded to "arrest" Padi and sentence her to death without any cause or reason whatsoever.  The parent's of the evil, deadly dangerous, 4 year old hired an ambulance chasing lawyer to file suit against Dr. Gartenberg, who is totally unaccountable for anything that happens at his office.

Here is the rebuttal by Dannheiser, Smith family attorney:"

My office, with the agreement of the Smith family, has created a proposal for the release of the Gartenberg family’s dog Padi. We expect the dog to be released to the Gartenberg family shortly.
The incontrovertible facts in this matter are that this four-year-old child Cooper, his babysitter Amanda, and Dr. Gartenberg’s daughter Emily were playing with the Gartenberg’s mixed breed dog Padi IN THE PRESENCE OF Dr. Gartenberg. Dr. Gartenberg did not feel it was necessary to watch over the children while they played with Padi and walked away as his daughter Emily took Cooper and Amanda to his office where Padi’s toys were kept so that Cooper could play fetch with Padi. At all times BOTH Emily and Amanda watched over Cooper and Padi. Both young ladies are responsible and intelligent girls who cared a great deal about Cooper.
Unfortunately, even though Emily and Amanda were standing there, Padi bit Cooper causing serious injuries. At no time did Emily, Amanda, or Cooper provoke Padi. Padi had carried a toy under an office desk and when Cooper walked to the desk to pick up another toy, while picking the toy up Padi lunged from underneath the desk and bit him and very unfortunately tore off a large portion of the child’s ear which will require the child to undergo multiple surgeries after which Cooper will be left with disfigurement.
The issue that is being missed in social media frenzy is that the confiscation of the animal and attempt to euthanize the animal has nothing to do with the Smith or Gartenberg family. It was a decision by the Manatee County Animal Control to utilize Florida statute 767.13 that provides that where a dog causes certain delineated injuries of the nature suffered by Cooper the dog is to be confiscated and destroyed. It provides for no judicial or administrative consideration of a totality of facts and circumstances. I believe that statute to be unconstitutional and have expressed that position. Whereas it is my responsibility to ensure that Cooper’s family is able to pay for his upcoming surgeries, we have no interest in this dog being euthanized and have worked diligently to encourage Manatee County to release Padi back to the Gartenbergs. I personally created an agreement to facilitate the return.

I do not know if the above account is super-accurate, either.  I would take it with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Interestingly, as per the above, Dannheiser facilitated the return of PADI to Gartenberg.  A lot of inquiring minds are asking:  WHAT THE HELL?   Why is the victim's lawyer advocating for the dog, and possibly even the DOG'S OWNER?

I found that situation VERY strange - here are a few of my theories:

- Dannheiser is a foaming at the mouth, raving dog fanatic and canine supremacist.  He is ignoring his client's best interest and pursuing a bogus animal rights agenda.   Consider:  ... It provides for no judicial or administrative consideration of a totality of facts and circumstances. I believe that statute to be unconstitutional and have expressed that position.   Again, IANAL, but exactly how does a dog have access to full constitutional protections?  Shall we issue PADI a pistol permit while we are at it?

- Dannheiser used PADI as a bargaining chip in the litigation.  In other words, pay up big time and do it NOW or we are going to kill your dog.  This is something I might be inclined to agree with.  I am sure Gartenberg would fight the lawsuit for years.

- Dannheiser and the family caved to various external pressures including social pressure, economic pressure, and death threats.  This is also very likely.

With the disclaimer that I was not there and probably do not have all the facts, I am going to render my judgement:

The dog should be killed and the owner confronted with civil and criminal liabilities.

Why kill the dog?   Simply because the threshold for using force against a human being is very high, and there is practically nothing this 4 year old could do to meet that threshold.  Enough of this "self defense" bullshit.... dogs should not be allowed to decide when force should be used against a human being - that is a right reserved for human beings.  Ergo, what PADI did was unacceptable, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

Why go after the owner?   Gartenberg allowed the dog to run free in his facility.  He should be held accountable for anything it does in that facility.   Ergo, the dog was an "attractive nuisance".  If Cooper had found a loaded gun on Gartenberg's desk and proceeded to shoot himself or someone else, Gartenberg would be in jail right now.  Q.E.D.