I've seen it mentioned. In this case the owners may not be able to ever pay a judgment. Looking at the case as a whole suing the original owners would force court testimony about exactly what happened. And that , while I'm not a lawyer, might open a huge can of worms for the liars and story tellers that have used Kevin as a scapegoat to justify the maulers behavior. And that trail leads to people with careers and money. The bone of contention.
Indeed. Consider the complaint. Thomas and Carolyn Baumann are indicated as co-defendants. I assume they are the owners/landlords. And, YES they can be held accountable for such a situation, particularly if it was known the dog was dangerous.
I hold poverty crying dog owners in contempt. At a minimum, they should be forced to pay the victim whatever it cost them to keep the dog(s). If you can afford a large dog, you can afford to pay the victim $50 a month.
Flor should also sue the the entire Mick Inner Party (Arpaio, Schill, Duddy, etc...) for libel and slander. They have been promoting the narrative that the incident was all Kevin's fault. How dare they blame a 4 year old for something like that?
Does this mean Kevin is now an official victim ? I want some truth telling. Time to end the narrative made up by the AR nuts to make this walking bear trap look like a victim. Dog owners and their landlords that allow pets need to be held accountable along with tenants no matter what breed of dog. Homes with fences that can't contain a dog and apartments with no outer security door are all major factors in many dog attacks. Our nearest city has condemned and taken many private residences that were made public nuisances by tenants creating hazards through crime or the ever popular meth house. Landlords happy to get their rent or their monthly section 8 payout and trying to excuse themselves from any responsibility for the mess their renters are creating. In fact it's not just economic here. Lots of people rent nice homes and are miscreants. Had some people living behind me 20 years ago. Their loose dogs tore up my futurity filly. Screwed her mind up bad for a long time. Cost us several thousand dollars. They turned out to be on the public dole and judgment proof. Couldn't feed their kids by had a pack of 3-5 large dogs. Never got clear on the number. I think they got rid of a few quick. Little bit of age comes some wisdom. Now I'd be hunting down the landowner and suing for the actual damages incurred. If it is proved that the McNuts have been promoting an outright lie to gain support and collect monies along with the likely disregard of the court order their personal finances should be put on the chopping block so that the taxpayers don't spend a lifetime paying for the damage caused by the mauler. Let me be clear. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration. That doesn't mean I think Kevin or his mother should be victimized by it. He is a child in need of prolonged medical intervention caused by the private ownership of a landmine. Looking at this close enough there might be witness intimidation via the politics of the Sheriff.
Count me as another non-fan of illegal immigration. (I'm in Tucson and see many of the downsides.)
That being said, here's my $.02 worth on the Kevin case: If he had been an Anglo boy from Scottsdale, Mickey wouldn't have lived a day past the mauling. He would have been put down. And the owners? They'd already be in court, defending against a huge lawsuit.
YQN. It seems more likely than not that the supporters of a mauler used the mother's status to victimize her and her son. I doubt it was direct but more implied. They were well aware of her non resident status and her likely reaction to legal problems. I have been amazed that one of the immigration rights groups hasn't stepped up. Without a doubt Kevin's human rights have been violated. I live in NM. I'm well aware or the real face of illegal immigration from all sides. None of it is pretty.
The Mick Inner Party exploited, and continues to exploit, the fact that dog attack victims are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Due to a mandated insane love of dogs and "dogs first" social and legal policies, dog attack victims are truly modern bottom-caste untouchables.
That said, I agree that Flor and Kevin's extant low status made it even easier for the Inner Party to move in for the proverbial kill. I agree that, while a wealthier, higher status victim would have been able to get some justice here, it would have cost them a considerable expenditure in financial and social capital. Anybody who campaigns against any dog or owner for any reason is a pariah. Consider the the uphill battles fought by, and the abuse heaped upon, Jeff Borchardt (sp), Tony Solesky, or anybody else who's had a kid torn up by a dog.
As per Eileen, absent the dog cult, we would expect an immigrants rights group to stand up for Flor and Kevin. I expect none did because none of them want to appear "anti-dog".
I can't see how they can argue Mickey was NOT dangerous since it had previously killed a neighbor's puppy. http://dogbitelaw.com/landlord-liability-for-dog-bites/liability-for-bites-by-tenants-dogs
I'm no fan of illegal immigration either (not saying this is the case here). But even if it WAS the case this child has been irreparably and permanently harmed by our society's dog worship and failure to do something about the 30+ year old pit bull mauling problem. Yes, he should be make whole in as much as it's possible. First by the canine IED's owners, second by the lunatics supporting it, and third by society.
Ka D I have seen it referenced more that a few times that she is an illegal. That is only relevant in this case because of the politics in Maricopa County and the possibility it was used as a method of intimidation. Or more likely they counted on her being reluctant to make a big stink.
Hopefully this will get a lot of publicity, even if things are a bit quiet now. If the Baumanns are the landlords, then it's going to make people think twice about letting to people who own pits. That in turn should mean more pits being surrendered to shelters and euthanised because no-one wants them. Even the Mick Inner Party (or the various factions thereof, as things stand) won't be able to save all of them.
I've written letters to landlords about pit bulls on their properties. Sometimes, the pit bulls go bye-bye. And, if they don't, those landlords are on notice.
Pioneer. Landlords need to think twice about any pet they allow on their property. Why should any landlord be able to rend a home to someone with a pack of dogs and there in not a suitable fence or any other modification that makes it possible to secure the dogs. Reading large numbers of reports dealing with dog attacks inadequate fencing and the lack of a security door in addition to a front door are stand out elements. I have also suggested many times that the pet portion of a home owners or landlords policy should stand alone with the same rate for every dog owner. When the owner of a neurotic barking ankle biter has to pay an inflated rate because of pit bull claims you will see a break from the claim they're like any other dog. Let the dog nuts thrash it out between themselves. I don't know the net worth of these landlords but considering this is a case where punitive damages are very likely they could loose everything because they choose to allow pets. After all the WMBC page has declared that the mauler was being kept in substandard living conditions. I'd be trying to settle out of court and save some of my hide.
People don't know how to search for other charges or lawsuits but I find most court information is online now. When I do fact checking I make sure at some time to go through the courts. This should be an interesting case to keep an eye on.
I can find the docket. There are a few websites that offer a price per page. Some of them are rather steep not the price of a copy. I have not been able to locate the hearing that went on in May , even on a docket. It's just as likely the dog was released as transferred to this wonderful dog heaven. I mean they wouldn't lie would they ???
(not sure if it will link direct to the page) but nothing at all on there appears to relate to the Mauler being approved for release to new digs. Am I missing something?
This lists the mother Flor and Kevin. Schill claimed did he not at the time Kevin was not a legal victim since there was no court case suing the dogs owners. He felt there was no need to notify anyone representing Kevin or his mother. It does appear by the dates that the dogs release was slid in under the lawsuit filed over the mauling.
The two cases are technically unrelated. The pleadings to have Mick released would have been filed by Schill's law office and would be a discrete case from this one.
Schill was very clear that Kevin was not a legal victim at the time they had a hearing to free the mauler. The hearing in may was about the dog and it's welfare.
Thats a good point, Eileen - "In what case?". The case where Kevin's family is suing Mick's prior owner! Note this case was filed back in February of this year prior to Mick Mauler's release. I suppose Schill may not have known about it - He and Mick are not parties in the case indicated above.
Operative word being "may" - he is probably watching that stuff closer than we are!
I've seen it mentioned. In this case the owners may not be able to ever pay a judgment. Looking at the case as a whole suing the original owners would force court testimony about exactly what happened. And that , while I'm not a lawyer, might open a huge can of worms for the liars and story tellers that have used Kevin as a scapegoat to justify the maulers behavior. And that trail leads to people with careers and money.
ReplyDeleteThe bone of contention.
I know of a Tucson case where the pit bull ripped the face off a three-year-old. Pit bull owners didn't have insurance as renters, BUT...
Delete...the property owner had homeowners insurance. So, that's the pot of money that the attorney went after. Ka-ching. Six-figure judgment.
Indeed. Consider the complaint. Thomas and Carolyn Baumann are indicated as co-defendants. I assume they are the owners/landlords. And, YES they can be held accountable for such a situation, particularly if it was known the dog was dangerous.
DeleteI hold poverty crying dog owners in contempt. At a minimum, they should be forced to pay the victim whatever it cost them to keep the dog(s). If you can afford a large dog, you can afford to pay the victim $50 a month.
Flor should also sue the the entire Mick Inner Party (Arpaio, Schill, Duddy, etc...) for libel and slander. They have been promoting the narrative that the incident was all Kevin's fault. How dare they blame a 4 year old for something like that?
Does this mean Kevin is now an official victim ?
DeleteI want some truth telling. Time to end the narrative made up by the AR nuts to make this walking bear trap look like a victim.
Dog owners and their landlords that allow pets need to be held accountable along with tenants no matter what breed of dog. Homes with fences that can't contain a dog and apartments with no outer security door are all major factors in many dog attacks.
Our nearest city has condemned and taken many private residences that were made public nuisances by tenants creating hazards through crime or the ever popular meth house. Landlords happy to get their rent or their monthly section 8 payout and trying to excuse themselves from any responsibility for the mess their renters are creating. In fact it's not just economic here. Lots of people rent nice homes and are miscreants.
Had some people living behind me 20 years ago. Their loose dogs tore up my futurity filly. Screwed her mind up bad for a long time. Cost us several thousand dollars. They turned out to be on the public dole and judgment proof. Couldn't feed their kids by had a pack of 3-5 large dogs. Never got clear on the number. I think they got rid of a few quick. Little bit of age comes some wisdom. Now I'd be hunting down the landowner and suing for the actual damages incurred.
If it is proved that the McNuts have been promoting an outright lie to gain support and collect monies along with the likely disregard of the court order their personal finances should be put on the chopping block so that the taxpayers don't spend a lifetime paying for the damage caused by the mauler.
Let me be clear. I'm not a fan of illegal immigration. That doesn't mean I think Kevin or his mother should be victimized by it. He is a child in need of prolonged medical intervention caused by the private ownership of a landmine. Looking at this close enough there might be witness intimidation via the politics of the Sheriff.
Count me as another non-fan of illegal immigration. (I'm in Tucson and see many of the downsides.)
DeleteThat being said, here's my $.02 worth on the Kevin case: If he had been an Anglo boy from Scottsdale, Mickey wouldn't have lived a day past the mauling. He would have been put down. And the owners? They'd already be in court, defending against a huge lawsuit.
YQN. It seems more likely than not that the supporters of a mauler used the mother's status to victimize her and her son. I doubt it was direct but more implied. They were well aware of her non resident status and her likely reaction to legal problems. I have been amazed that one of the immigration rights groups hasn't stepped up. Without a doubt Kevin's human rights have been violated.
DeleteI live in NM. I'm well aware or the real face of illegal immigration from all sides. None of it is pretty.
The Mick Inner Party exploited, and continues to exploit, the fact that dog attack victims are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Due to a mandated insane love of dogs and "dogs first" social and legal policies, dog attack victims are truly modern bottom-caste untouchables.
DeleteThat said, I agree that Flor and Kevin's extant low status made it even easier for the Inner Party to move in for the proverbial kill. I agree that, while a wealthier, higher status victim would have been able to get some justice here, it would have cost them a considerable expenditure in financial and social capital. Anybody who campaigns against any dog or owner for any reason is a pariah. Consider the the uphill battles fought by, and the abuse heaped upon, Jeff Borchardt (sp), Tony Solesky, or anybody else who's had a kid torn up by a dog.
As per Eileen, absent the dog cult, we would expect an immigrants rights group to stand up for Flor and Kevin. I expect none did because none of them want to appear "anti-dog".
I can't see how they can argue Mickey was NOT dangerous since it had previously killed a neighbor's puppy. http://dogbitelaw.com/landlord-liability-for-dog-bites/liability-for-bites-by-tenants-dogs
DeleteI'm no fan of illegal immigration either (not saying this is the case here). But even if it WAS the case this child has been irreparably and permanently harmed by our society's dog worship and failure to do something about the 30+ year old pit bull mauling problem. Yes, he should be make whole in as much as it's possible. First by the canine IED's owners, second by the lunatics supporting it, and third by society.
DeleteKa D I have seen it referenced more that a few times that she is an illegal. That is only relevant in this case because of the politics in Maricopa County and the possibility it was used as a method of intimidation. Or more likely they counted on her being reluctant to make a big stink.
DeleteLONG past time. I hope they are sued into the earth's core, and burned alive.
ReplyDeleteHopefully this will get a lot of publicity, even if things are a bit quiet now. If the Baumanns are the landlords, then it's going to make people think twice about letting to people who own pits. That in turn should mean more pits being surrendered to shelters and euthanised because no-one wants them. Even the Mick Inner Party (or the various factions thereof, as things stand) won't be able to save all of them.
ReplyDeleteI've written letters to landlords about pit bulls on their properties. Sometimes, the pit bulls go bye-bye. And, if they don't, those landlords are on notice.
DeletePioneer. Landlords need to think twice about any pet they allow on their property. Why should any landlord be able to rend a home to someone with a pack of dogs and there in not a suitable fence or any other modification that makes it possible to secure the dogs. Reading large numbers of reports dealing with dog attacks inadequate fencing and the lack of a security door in addition to a front door are stand out elements.
DeleteI have also suggested many times that the pet portion of a home owners or landlords policy should stand alone with the same rate for every dog owner. When the owner of a neurotic barking ankle biter has to pay an inflated rate because of pit bull claims you will see a break from the claim they're like any other dog. Let the dog nuts thrash it out between themselves.
I don't know the net worth of these landlords but considering this is a case where punitive damages are very likely they could loose everything because they choose to allow pets. After all the WMBC page has declared that the mauler was being kept in substandard living conditions.
I'd be trying to settle out of court and save some of my hide.
People don't know how to search for other charges or lawsuits but I find most court information is online now. When I do fact checking I make sure at some time to go through the courts. This should be an interesting case to keep an eye on.
ReplyDeleteI would love to find the transcript for the hearing in May where the mauler was supposedly released to his new lux digs.
DeleteIndeed. Its not difficult to look up. Here is the link to the docket:
Deletehttps://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2015-002852
I'll update the post as well.
I can find the docket. There are a few websites that offer a price per page. Some of them are rather steep not the price of a copy.
DeleteI have not been able to locate the hearing that went on in May , even on a docket. It's just as likely the dog was released as transferred to this wonderful dog heaven. I mean they wouldn't lie would they ???
I've found the page with the reference number CV2015-002852:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp
(not sure if it will link direct to the page) but nothing at all on there appears to relate to the Mauler being approved for release to new digs. Am I missing something?
This lists the mother Flor and Kevin. Schill claimed did he not at the time Kevin was not a legal victim since there was no court case suing the dogs owners. He felt there was no need to notify anyone representing Kevin or his mother.
DeleteIt does appear by the dates that the dogs release was slid in under the lawsuit filed over the mauling.
The two cases are technically unrelated. The pleadings to have Mick released would have been filed by Schill's law office and would be a discrete case from this one.
DeleteSchill was very clear that Kevin was not a legal victim at the time they had a hearing to free the mauler. The hearing in may was about the dog and it's welfare.
DeleteThats a good point, Eileen - "In what case?". The case where Kevin's family is suing Mick's prior owner! Note this case was filed back in February of this year prior to Mick Mauler's release. I suppose Schill may not have known about it - He and Mick are not parties in the case indicated above.
DeleteOperative word being "may" - he is probably watching that stuff closer than we are!