Sunday, August 16, 2015

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.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Open Thread .02C

Happy almost Friday.  Some conversation starters ->

You two legged peons will be AZZIMILATED!   Mickey of Dorg will make it so!   You exist to serve the DORG.


Hey, its never the wrong time to bring up a justifiable use of force argument!

Defining justifiable force is easy:

Justifiable:  Any use of force BY a dog.  A dog may kill anybody ON his (owner's) land.  Also, a dog may kill anybody OFF his owner's land!!!   Indeed, a dog can attack anybody or anything, anyplace at any time for any (or no) reason and IT IS ALL GOOD!   Look, all dog behavior is good by definition... who are we mere mortals to argue seamless logic like that?

Not justifiable:  Any use of force used AGAINST a dog.  Look, dogs can do no wrong, so who are we mere mortals to interfere in the affairs of Dog?   A dog has an absolute, unconditional right to kill everyone (and everything) on AND OFF his land!  Who do you think you are trying to interfere?   Be a pal and let him chow down on your 4 year old, OK?

Dog works in mysterious ways.  Got a few tips on a hot case.  So, if the nutters are correct, I may simply SHOOT THEM DEAD when they come around looking for their DAWG?   Wait... I guess not.... I have LESSER RIGHTS THAN FIDO!   Read the comments.... they are true classics!

Hey dog owning morons - Fido needs a change in job description and that goes for BARKING and Biting!

Have a happy Friday!

[EDIT]  Hot off the presses!  Asheville (NC) Humane Society not to blame for adopting out killer dog!   Again, read the comments they are CLASSIC!

Hopefully the parents are better supervising any remaining children they have - and will teach them to respect other people's property.

AND!

I agree, the parents failure is tragic. They are 100% responsible. Nobody else.

Yep, the dog AND the owner are both as pure as the driven snow!   



Saturday, August 1, 2015

The stabbing controversy / Occams razor

Another doggy double standard outrage.  Man arrested and charged with animal cruelty after stabbing attacking pit bull.

Relevant Actors:

- Rocky Faircloth:  Pit Bull owner.
- "Semi":  Trespassing, attacking "Pit Bull"/unidentifiable breed mutt.
- Rodney Woodward:  Owner of victim GSD.  Stabbed Semi 21 times according to necropsy report.
- One injured GSD.



Note the use of quotes around "Pit Bull":  The comments on the article are true classics.  One robo poster relentlessly pursued the notion that pit bulls cannot be identified.  By anybody.  Because nobody has a clue about anything.  I made a few snarky comments in reply, but finally cut through the cubic light years of bullshit with the following....









All of this chatter is noise. The man that stabbed the pit bull/unidentifiable breed mix/whatever was within his rights. An animal invaded his property and attacked his animal. Defending his animal in the way he did is an enumerated right almost everywhere. Pit bull or not this was NOT a case of animal cruelty.
Prosecuting this man is clearly a case of out of control, unhinged and unbalanced dog nuttery with no sense of proportion. You love dogs? Goody for you: Respect the right of others to protect their dogs from predators.

What was even more interesting were the pro-BSL folks that took the troll bait and flamed back in reply.  WHY does the entire world view of SO many people, on both sides of this debate, depend on what kind of dog it is?  From my perspective, the precise breed isn't central to the point.  The central point is, do you have a right to defend your animal from a trespassing canine attacker, or any realistic threat?   If the attacking animal were a rottweiler, or a cane corso, or a BEAR, it would be a distinction without a difference.

In my opinion, when a dog attacks, we do not necessarily WANT it to be one breed or the other.  What we want is for these bad behaviors to cease.  THAT would be a good outcome.

Now, if the invader were a gerbil, then that would lend the animal cruelty narrative some legitimacy.  A gerbil does not pose a realistic threat to a GSD.  A gerbil is not going to kill or even seriously injure a GSD.   However, the attacker was apparently not a gerbil.  In my opinion, as long as the threat is very plausible, the use of force is justified.

Back to the BSL debate - Breed ID "deniers" seem to violate the principle of Occams razor - that being that the simplest, most obvious explanation is probably the right one.  In this case, if several people see the same thing and they all agree on what it was, then that consensus is probably correct.  Sure, there may be a conspiracy, but that notion should be rejected without proof.

For example, a bank is robbed.  A half dozen eye-witnesses ID the getaway car as a red '60's vintage Ford Mustang.  These are readily identifiable vehicles.  So, you are not 100% sure a Mustang was the getaway car, but we can be sure enough.  You are never 100% sure of anything.  Competing theories, such as the car is unidentifiable because all of the witnesses were not retired Ford design engineers, are not very interesting.  "Nobody can ID a car!   It may have been a Mercedes Van, or a Chevy Pick Up!" the apologista bleat.  Yes, that is possible but very unlikely.  They could argue the colors, too - "Maybe they were ALL color blind!  They can't tell red from green!".   Yep, and maybe I'm the grand Ayatollah.

So, according to the apologista, NOBODY involved could ID the breed of "Semi".  Not the vics, not the cops, not the AC officers, not any of the neighbors that had seen the dog previously, not the vet that did the necropsy.  Nobody!   How do these people think the rest of us function.  How do we find our cars the the parking lot?  How do we identify our friends and family members?   Perhaps that person who looks like your spouse is not really your spouse.... maybe their long lost identical twin killed them and has taken their place?

Perhaps, Animal Uncontrol did not actually write this article.  Perhaps that person was cloned by aliens and this is all part of some big galactic conspiracy to turn humans against their dogs?  Now, THERE is a theory you can sink your teeth into!

Enjoy your weekend!