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.

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!   

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....

Animal Uncontrol • 4 days ago

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!

The silver lining

That would be a silver lining for DOGS, not YOU... Peons!  What the hell were you thinking??

As per my last post, Mickey's original owner has been revealed!  The individual that abused and neglected St. Mick SOOOOO terribly that the Mick had no choice but to chow down on a four year old (who supposedly deserved to be eaten regardless, but who can keep track of those goalposts anyway?).  In any case, according to the foamers, we are talking about abuse so horrible, so unspeakable, it would make a Spanish Inquisitor immediately turn green and die from the sheer horror of it all!  O The Dogmanity!

Consider this pic from WMBC:

This is where Mickey use to live.

No green grass, not trees, no shade. Basically a sweat lodge, were he suffered, and was abused.

Mickey has come a long way since then.

Predictably, the WMBC commenters did not disappoint:

And, so forth.  Its tough to keep track of all the conflicting narratives.  Among them:

- Mick is completely innocent, yet being incarcerated was good for him.  So, shouldn't they be THANKING Kevin, the family, and the babysitter?  Hell, all this goodness could not have happened without them, right??   If it weren't for criminal mastermind Kevin "bone-jacker" Vicente, Mick would still be living in those HORRID conditions!

- Their "proof" that Mick was so horribly abused was... he lived outside in a doghouse.   Wouldn't that apply to ANY outdoor dog?  Where is the crusade to end outdoor tethering?   Again, shouldn't they be glad that Mick was IN the jail?   At least he wasn't outside where there are evil human children constantly trying to steal his food and toys.

- No green grass, not trees, no shade.  I have been to the Phoenix area several times.  This description fits the entire area.  IT IS A DESERT, FOOLS!   They are implying that the owner tore up all the grass and cut down all the trees for the primary purpose of making Dear Mick suffer.  Perhaps they should just BAN dog ownership in the entire US Southwest?

Reading the comments, there is a narrative that is conspicuously absent.  With the exception of a one-time comment by Schill, you NEVER hear the Mick horde apply any blame to the owner.   They make it sound like Mick's living conditions were something that just happened, that Mick just wound up in the doghouse by magic and was abused by.... whom??   Where is the vitriol aimed at THAT person?   Now, I don't read ALL of the comments, but enough to get the gist of the narrative.

The unspoken part of their narrative is that dog owners are ALL as pure as the driven snow, just like the animals they keep!  More bait and switch.  In the abstract, the foamers blame it on abuse/neglect/training, BUT when something actually happens, and / or if you actually must apply blame - put ALL of the blame on the victim, or at least someone else besides the dog and the owner.  

You'd think, given that they are infatuated with this dog, they would harbor at least some vitriol for the person that set Mick up to fail.  Hey geniuses - WHO put Mick in that doghouse with no trees, no green grass, no iPads and no cable TV?  Who was it who abused him?  WHERE is the resentment aimed in THAT direction?  Nope, they gotta hate on the victim, his family, and all us critics.... it was all OUR fault!

And, there is the reason these problems roll on.  60 years of the dogocracy have seen to it that no dog or owner is held accountable for anything, ever.   Obviously, because its ALWAYS someone else who made a mistake, deliberately did the wrong thing, or needs to change.  And, it doesn't matter what the complaint is.  Dog owners NEVER do wrong, never need to modify their behavior, or do so much as lift a finger.  They are the epitome of absolute perfection!   Its the REST of us that need to change!

YES

Kevin's Mom is suing Mickey's owner!

Very little mention of this, even on the anti-Mick sites.  Should be very interesting!

Here is the link to the case info.  Case details, such as the pleadings, are not available.  Might be able to find them with more digging.

FreeDumb!!

I just can't seem to get the following song out of my head these days.... I wonder why that is?

I have no idea.  In any case, a few interesting developments on the MICKEY front!

It appears there was some dissention within the Mickey Inner Party.   A voice mail message from John Schill to Annie Duddy (both part of the inner sanctum) during January went as follows:

"Annie I'ma having to delete your posts and if you continue to post Mickey is not there I'm gonna have to ban from Save Mickey. You cannot say he is not at MASH. That is not your pwace and you should never do so. Mickey cannot leave Mash. The only reason it is because I'm involved. You can't do it. Mickey cannot be known to be not at MASH. Why would you post like that? Who are you to post like that? You can't post that."

Extra consideration to the phrase Mickey cannot be known to be not at MASH.  Indeed, because that would have been a violation of a COURT ORDER.   Again, note this was back in JANUARY, and Mick was not released to his new digs until May.   This is consistent with the "Mickey Cam" being down for days at a time.  It would be no surprise that these "glitches" were intentional and the Mauler was released from confinement during those times.  Obviously, I cannot prove that but the theory is very plausible. 

Much to the consternation of Mick's rank and file (proles), the WMBC page has devolved into a spam page for "save this biter" or "prayers for that mauler" and the like. Very little info on the Saint himself.  The "Proles" of the Save Mickey movement had been more or less abandoned.  And, why not?  The big shots got what they wanted:

- Mauler is spared.
- Mauler is free from the jail.
- They have the legal precedent they need to save more maulers.

So, who cares about all of that filthy rabble?  The useful idiots are no longer useful and they get dumped at the curb... its all good!  Well, until they are needed AGAIN but I'm sure their overriding, irrational love of all dogs will get them to support the next "save this killer dog" type cause!

There is something to be learned here:  Dog lovers take Heed!  Getting involved with any of these AR creeps is NOT going to make your life better.  They will take your money and your time and leave you holding the bag.  Consider that they care for nothing but dogs and themselves - its obvious they put zero value on the lives, rights and interests of other human beings.  They have nothing but contempt for you.  To them, you are nothing but a commodity to be consumed!  

The Mick Cam was never re-activated at the new location, arguably due to the Mick Foamer's theory the place would be immediately stormed and overrun by a phalanx of Mickey Haters armed with machine guns, rocket launchers, and flame throwers.   However, the theory amongst the more rational is that a new Mick Cam would reveal that the mauler is not being housed in a manner consistent with the court order.... i.e. a suburban living room or the like with frequent breaks to walk the neighborhood. 

Consider this:

 

Is that window some sort of unbreakable Plexiglas?  What sort of door is on that "room"?  Mick's digs at MASH indicated that he was not going to escape to maul anybody.  His home was a cell of concrete and steel designed to harbor human prisoners. WHERE is he running and playing?

We the people have a right to some transparency in this matter.  Ideally, every dog that mauls and kills would be summarily put down, this relieving us of the burden of harboring known dangerous animals in our communities.

That said, if its imperative (for some arcane reason) to spare these beasts then we have a right to a FULL ACCOUNTING of where the damn thing is every minute of every day!   How the hell does a DOG that tears up a CHILD have a right to this sort of privacy?   What should we call this....?

THE WITLESS PROTECTION PROGRAM!



The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Back from vacation.   Took my RV to a large National Forest Campground in the Appalachians.

Had a good time.

Being who I am, I observed many fellow campers with DOGS.  In a relatively small area in a relatively short period of time I was able to observe the full spectrum of dog ownership.

Lets start with the good.  Some folks in a class C motorhome had a Rough Collie (i.e. "Lassie") that was one of the best behaved dogs I had ever observed.  I am talking impeccable manners here.   The dog lay out in front of it's "home", casually people watching, calmly observing the goings on around it.  Not the smallest hint of hysteria or aggression. It made NO noise.  Why can't all dogs be like this?  Obviously, I do not know the full story - it may have been loaded up on valium for all I know.

Lets continue on with the Bad.  There were a few campers with overstimulated, hysterical little dogs that were just barely contained.   Periodically, something would trigger one or the other to emit a 5-10 nervous yaps before the owner shut it up.  Now, some would argue that a dog like this is not a true nuisance.  I would agree to the extent that A dog like this is not a true nuisance, where A = 1.   While one dog like this does not bark enough to be a true nuisance, if you have several of them in the immediate area they form a collective nuisance.   Dogs like this should be kenneled or left at home.

Now, moving on to the ugly.  There were a couple of archetypes indicated here:

The super yapper.  There was one small dog (a great distance from I, fortunately) that basically barked for the sake of barking.  Nothing triggered it or set it off in any way, it just barked.  And Barked.  And Barked.  Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp! Arp!  And, so forth.  I think you get the picture.  One important point I would like to make here, is, NO ONE goes on vacation in the forest to listen to someone else's pet dog bark incessantly.  The irritating noise is not useful, nor is it natural.  This behavior should be banned in entirety.  This was outside of my state (FL) and state park rangers in MY state would have thrown the dog out.

The aggression projector.  Every neighborhood has at least one of these and there were two of them in the area in question.  Again, I lucked out that neither was near me.  In any case, this was characterized as a Pit Bull/mix chained up near the front of the site.  It would frequently charge to the extent of the chain, growling and barking furiously at anyone who came near.   Again, this behavior would not have been tolerated in my state and both of these should have been thrown out as well.  In addition to the noise, if either of these dogs had broken restraint, someone would have wound up in the hospital.   It was obvious that both of these dogs were "game" and wanted to attack something. 

Read the pet camping rules in force in Florida State parks.  If they are going to allow pets, this is the right way to do it.

From the link above "Pets that are noisy, vicious, dangerous, disturbing or intimidating to other persons or pets, or which damage park resources, are considered to be nuisances and will not be permitted to remain in the park."

Get that, NC Forest Service?   Do it right!