Pantagraph.com | News | Family's 2 pit bulls kill infant daughter

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

bnblogger wrote on Sep 29, 2008 11:51 AM:

" bosshoss21:
well these dogs are powerful and well its pretty clear from the article that these dogs broke through the screen door and pushed their way into an inside door. Don't blame the grandmother for those violent beasts actions. "

bosshoss21 wrote on Sep 28, 2008 12:16 PM:

" first of all this situation has nothing to do with the fact that it was a pit bull. Any large dog can maul someone at any time and seriously injure them. I own a pitbull and never has he been close to killing any kids. You have to be responsible for your dogs.. and responsible for your children. Also why was it a possible situation for a dog to bust in a door and have access to an infant child. Ive never had any dogs bust my door down and murder my family... "

jillie wrote on Sep 27, 2008 6:11 PM:

" I myself know two people who have been attacked by pitbulls, one as a child by her grandparents pit, she was very young and severely injured in the face and is scarred to this day. The other is the owner of the pit that attacked and she said it was a very docile dog and it attacked her while she was feeding it. She is also severely scarred. Personally those statistics are enough for me to keep my children and myself far away from any pitbull if at all possible. I just recently heard on a local radio station that a lady has lost her two pitbulls, they got loose. This is what I call irresponsible. I have a dog myself, part lab and part miniature collie that I watch very closely around children. He is very protective of my children and very playful but I don't ever trust him around other children unsupervised, just to be safe. Pit Bulls are very scary in my eyes and I warn my children to stay away from all dogs if they don't know them.God Bless this family in this difficult time. "

think_first wrote on Sep 26, 2008 4:00 PM:

" i have a friend in another state who has a wolf as a pet thats her choice her baby,but i'll never visit her with any kids my choice my grandbabies. "

sammy wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:57 AM:

" to luvnlgn06 and jelloshot this is from the Center of Disease Control. I own a beagle and a German... I would not trust either with my grand child and they are put in the outside kennel with the baby is in the house... basically... you never trust any dog.. of any breed... 100% especially around children.. if you do you are an idiot.. You cannot say it is just becaust it is a Pit.. Pits can be a wonderful breed if raised properply.

The breeds most commonly involved in both bite injuries and fatalities changes from year to year and from one area of the country to another, depending on the popularity of the breed. Although genetics do play some part in determining whether a dog will bite, other factors such as whether the animal is spayed or neutered, properly socialized, supervised, humanely trained, and safely confined play significantly greater roles. Responsible dog ownership of all breeds is the key to dog bite prevention. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 25, 2008 2:24 PM:

" JWill:
I am with you on that one because I seriously do not think that was the case as a former Husky owner I do know that a great number of them are in fact inbred. I had one that had never hurt any other dog or child but turned one day all of the sudden and killed one of my Chihuahua puppies almost instantly. I had her put down for it. We called the puppy Dolly because she in all of her 3 and half inches pranced around knowing the fact she was an absolute doll lol "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:54 PM:

" i would also like point out my confusion on the headline of that story sweetcheeks. how are they able to print that "the dog mistaked it for a stuffed animal"? how would they know that? just another example of the media's biased reporting against pit bulls. if that would have been a pit bull, it would read "pit bull mauls child to death". but instead fox news makes this headline... "Husky Mistakes Newborn for Stuffed Animal, Killing Her". come on.... really? "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:42 PM:

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:30 PM:

" yeah i noticed that after i wrote it. sorry about that. you get the point though. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:19 PM:

" JWill:
You have that stats a little wrong. I saw that story as well and the husky was 3 years old but the child was a newborn baby. The baby died on Monday. "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Luvnlgn06- maybe if you read something other than biased opinion of the Pantagraph, you would know that does happen. there was an article i saw today about a husky killing a 3 year old in Ohio. the pantagraph rarely posts any attack stories not involving pits because they know they will get readers. this story here wasn't even in bloomington, they got it from AP, same place they could get stories praising pit bulls, or stories showing other dogs attack people. "

think_first wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:10 AM:

" donredbird,
no need for apoligy everything is ok .some people do introduce kids and dogs together and it works,but sometimes it does not it is the grown ups who have to use the precations.my sister has raised pit bulls for years sometimes she gets agressive ones from litters,but she knows I wont have my grandkids around the dogs untill they are older to defend themselfs,my grandkids come first, so she cages them when we come over.so it solves the problem. "

Luvnlgn06 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 6:12 PM:

" Ok so how many Times in the past year have pit bulls attacked someone either leading to death or serious conditions....come on now! IT IS THE BREED!!! HELLO!! I dont think we hear about our Beagles or Labaradors Killing or attacking people on practically a monthly basis. Pit Bulls Are Mean Blooded animals!!! Keep you children away from them!!!! "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:35 PM:

" to jelloshot--and i wouldn't be annoyed if you didn't have internet access to make stupid comments. "

Jelloshot wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:57 PM:

" It's simple really....that child would still be alive and would not have died a most horrible death....if pitbulls were not around. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 23, 2008 2:25 PM:

" think_first, I apologize, I didn't understand what you meant by whether or not the dogs were outside, and your question is a legitimate one, that I don't have an answer for. And, for clarification, I don't question your reasons, they are legitimate, but in my experience and my family's experience(one set of grandparents breed, and trained dogs of all kinds, the other had a lot of dogs) we found that in control situations, it was best to introduce the dogs and children to one another, so that they could become accustomed to one another, and be comfortable around one another. Never alone, however. But, to each his own. "

patriot5 wrote on Sep 23, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Wake up pit owners. Its not about which dog bites more it about what dogs bit kills more, and sorry its the Pit "

think_first wrote on Sep 23, 2008 12:07 PM:

" donredbird, i did read where the dogs burst into the house so the dogs obviously were outside roaming free.what i wonder is how they managed to burst into was it a shut screen door or was the door open? i had a toy poodle when my kids were little and it kept snapping at the little ones no matter what i did so i myself decided,no dogs around the kids.they were my main concern and their safety and well being came first.they all love dogs today but use the same precautions i do now.Life is too precious to ever loose one person. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 23, 2008 6:52 AM:

" think_first, I agree parents need to pay attention, and being cautious when bringing their pets around their children. But, I wouldn't go so far as to say you want to keep the to completely a part, I would personally introduce them to one another in a controlled environment, so that both the children and the dogs can get used to one another(don't leave them alone together until the children are older). This way you can set the guidelines for each, on what will be acceptable and what is not. At least this is my theory. And, you may have missed it while reading the article, but the dogs were outside. "

think_first wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:36 PM:

" to set this straight...i don't care what kind of dogs in particular these were i could care less...i'm a grandma what i care about is kids around dogs,i kept my dogs away from my kids and grandkids when they were young.it is called using common sense and protecting what God gave us to protect" our kids".who we can't replace once gone,gone.i bet if those parents had it to do over those dogs would hwve been out side or kenneled. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:59 PM:

" sweetcheeks, i agree "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 22, 2008 10:42 AM:

" donredbird:
your probably right but they need to do something. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:53 AM:

" sweetcheeks, while I like the legislation idea I think it would be tough to pass nationally, what I think they should enact, and I think it would be easy to slip into a bill would be rules that if a dog bite sends a person to the hospital the name and residence of both the owner and the dog should be recorded and Animal Control should perform random checks to evaluate the dog, the owner, and the situation to make sure everything is ok, and it was simply a one time incident. I love dogs, and I believe that owners need to be heavily involved in the training. And, I don't think legislation would be a bad idea, but it would be hard to establish in my opinion. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:47 AM:

" 4nubbs, my only problem is that a dangerous breed is all about perception, some people see different breeds as dangerous as opposed to others. I have friends that love certain breeds and feel that others are a danger to society(loves boxers, feels tk shire terriers are a danger long story). As far as the Pomeranian, asked around to my friends in my classes at ISU/work/and my mother(who is a news junkie) and none of them had heard of it either, probably close to 50 people had never heard of it. But, thank you as well for the debate, it was fun. "

Jay G wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Yeah, lets outlaw all dogs. Then follow up with cats.

The next thing you know, we'll domesticate, monkeys, chimps and gorillas,.........then WATCH OUT!

The planet will be taken over and run by...."Damn Dirty Apes"!!!!!! "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:11 AM:

" 2read:
great post "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:10 AM:

" donredbird:
I am not a fan of Cocker Spanials. I have never seem a gentle one. I think they have terrible tempraments and I have heard numerous times that they attacked a child. That legislation I suggested was meant to be for any breed. There are responsible pit owners like Pitbullmom, Jwill and a few others that we greatfully DON'T hear from (except for here) because their dogs are not a problem. They know what their dogs are capable of.

LLM:
In defense of all of the bloggers whether I agree with them or not we are talking about dogs that attack and/or kill children. As far as pitbullmom goes I don't have to respond. I couldn't have said it better then you did. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:04 AM:

" re-'donredbird', I used the phrase that you provided on my search engine and found many articles confirming that you weren't mistaken. At least about the breed of dog anyway. Looks like it was widely reported. Just because I didn't read or hear about it doesn't mean that it wasn't. I'm still not convinced that a Pomeranian is as much threat in a community or even a household as a pit bull. But you make a good argument. Thanks for the earnest and respectful debate! "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 22, 2008 8:50 AM:

" and by these animals, i don't mean the ones that attacked the people. i meant the innocent ones that have done nothing, which is what you and many other people want. "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 22, 2008 8:49 AM:

" birdoffire, you have officially won the title of most ignorant poster in the world. sorry, but did my post hit a nerve? starting to see the similarities? you're probably one of those people that says we should just drop nukes on countries because you don't like them aren't you? one of those "good ole boys" that thinks we should just kill anything we don't like or that a select few may be dangerous. killing these animals is not the answer genius. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 22, 2008 7:57 AM:

2read wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:07 AM:

" So many comments assuming that the dog owners 'knew' they were dangerous. *Animals aren’t always predicable!* Really loving, tame animals can get scared or confused. Base instincts kick in without provocation (or especially with it). I’ve seen it firsthand.

This isn't just about Rotts or Pit Bulls (though they're more aggressive dogs, no argument about it). This is about all dogs, because they're animals. Same with cats. Or birds. I can't imagine that Steve Irwin would have guessed that a stingray would be his demise.

If you want to own a large, strong dog with a powerful muzzle, know that it's an unpredictable animal. We don’t need to ban breeds, but we do need accountability for people keeping large, aggressive breeds and defending them as they, in this case, rip a baby to shreds. (Kind of hard to defend - don't you think?)

Any of us who own large dogs should be aware of their potential. The moment I think "my dog" is not capable of this behavior, we're all at risk. And that comes from a dog lover. ;) "

bgpapa wrote on Sep 20, 2008 7:58 PM:

" I didn't take time to read all comments so if this has been said b4 I'm sorry. If the dogs were heartless blood thirsty killers why is the grandma still alive? Owners need to take precautions with all animals but especially bigger stronger ones. "

8423450 wrote on Sep 20, 2008 3:23 AM:

" 2 seperate issues horrible thing the death of a baby
no bad dogs just bad dog owners I would never leave my 12 lb pomeranian with any child she can't be trusted she was a humane society dog and i adopted her at 6-what were her early years like? I don't know but do know she will bite just because she feels "pu upon" or if you accidently knock into her-you have to know your own dog "

birdoffire wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:10 PM:

" Jwill1583
First of all...you must be in support of baby killing dogs or you wouldn't be sticking up for them. And to the person who said nobody is mentioning the child...well, the child would still be alive if it weren't for vicious dogs like pit bulls and ignorant people who train them incorrectly. How many more dog killing children horror stories are we going to have to read before something is done? "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:27 PM:

" sweetcheeks, I would say that it is a matter of size that keeps a little dog from killing someone. And, does it have to kill to be dangerous, I know someone who still has scars from where his mothers cocker spaniell attacked him. I would say that if we are going to put any sort of legislation on "dangerous" breeds it will simply have to be all breeds. "

LLM wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:58 PM:

" And PitbullMom...I believe you went for the last word at 2:40 pm today, despite telling everyone on September 16th you were 'bowing out'. Sometimes I think many people who post on here have a word quota they need to meet. Additionally, a little civility (from everyone, not just you) would go a long way. In the scheme of things, we all know that everyone is entitled to own whatever dog they would like. I think we also all know that it is the owner's responsibility to train the dog in such a way that it doesn't maim or harm others. Finally, it is a moot point to tout the positives of your choice of dogs to others who do not agree with your choice. So basically these past few days have been nothing but a waste of good oxygen. "

LLM wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:52 PM:

" So a funny thing happened...I was reading a story that was about an infant that was killed far away from here. The breed of the dogs was part of the story--as it would be with any breed of dog--and yet Bloomington-Normal's finest bloggers posted 259 comments without any regard to the actual story. Instead, these fine people bickered back and forth about the pros/cons of pit bulls. For 259 comments. How many people even mentioned the baby? Certainly not 259 because most of those were reserved for Sweetcheeks and PitbullMom who managed to post 61 of those posts between them (24%). Give it a rest already. Agree to disagree, acknowledge that you have different OPINIONS, get a chat room, meet for coffee or something. But really, it's hard to take either of you seriously when you would span 5 days arguing about dogs...when the article is about a killed baby. "

Townie here... wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:26 PM:

" I'm with nature on this one. Domesticated animals (much like trained wild ones--i.e. Siegfried and Roy) can crack and revert back to their natural instincts. I'm not a fan of the bull dog but I don't think "naturally" eliminating the breed is an answer; though I don't actually have an answer.

It's just an unfortunate incident. Furthermore, the loss of the child to the family pets (which if you're like me the pet is also like a child) is very sad. "

Townie here... wrote on Sep 19, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Anchor--you MUST buy the shirt then. I see people read it and giggle...then some of me ask how I do like cats...broiled, I say....

I think it's at some website called noisebot . com "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 19, 2008 3:02 PM:

" birdoffire- yeah that will solve everything. lets ban everything that has anything negative. lets ban books. lets ban this, ban that. while we're at it, lets turn america into nazi germany. what an idiotic approach to an issue. get a clue. "

birdoffire wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Most dogs can kill but it seems to me that pitbulls are more prone
to attacking and killing than others. When will anyone ever get a clue
and ban these kind of dogs for good? "

PitbullMom wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Sweetcheeks is still at it. You sure are investing a lot of time in discussing this issue. What's your motive? Gotta have the last word? "

college student wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:39 PM:

" people get a clue! this article isn't about the dogs...it's about the terrible and unfortunate death of a baby!! may she rest in peace and God bless her family! it doesn't matter what kind of dog it is, if it kills or attacks anyone it should be killed! "

MsToryMom wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:09 PM:

" In case some of you missed it in the article...A BABY WAS KILLED!! The majority of the posts that I've read are from one side or the other on whether pits are good or bad. If you want to defend pits fine...if you want to trash them fine. But for goodness sake have some compassion for the family that just lost an innocent baby!! My heart goes out to them and I will keep them in my prayers. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 2:06 PM:

" donredbird:
Some dogs just cant be trained if they are inbred. It just doesnt stick. As far as being provoked , no some of them do not need to be provoked. Lap dogs for the most part do not kill, in fact very seldom.

JWill:
That is what the limitations would prevent. It would also eliminate the cross breeds and in turn produce more passive pits. Maybe even add a spay/nueter requirement so that they cant be privatly bred making people rely on the licensed breeders who breed them properly. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:56 PM:

" bloomington girl:
I also dont think a complete ban will help because they most certainly will end up in the hands of criminals and elimating the breed is just not the answer. I say if they do this they better start with the Presa Canrios first. Those limitations I mentioned wont effect those that actually take proper care of their dogs. You never hear about their dogs because they KNOW what they are capable of doing. I never did let my Rotts near anyones kids even though Bear was trained to protect women and kids and he did very well. I just didnt want to take the chance. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:40 PM:

" 4nubbs, I quote from the article right now "found her head buried in the dog's mouth" I am not mistaken unless you are saying that everyone involved with the story, including the relative taking care of the child, is mistaken. Also, you can train and condition a dog to curb their instincts. In the wild dogs instinctively mark all their territory, but you can train a dog not to urinate or defaecate in your house can't you? You can train a dog to obey commands even if it goes against the instincts of the animal(stay for example, or training your dog to come to you on a whistle when it's instincts tell it to run and explore while off a leash). Can you reason with an animal, yes, in the way you reason with a human, no. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Sweetcheeks, all dogs can be provoked, all dogs can bite, and all dogs can kill, all dogs must be considered a dangerous breed in terms of the legislation for them. I would think that there would need to be some sort of penalty for the trainer if a dog attacks and kill someone after going through their training. Maybe the trainer didn't train the dog right, or was to harsh with the dog during training. These things would need to be policed as well. That is what I mean there. "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:20 PM:

" the thing that needs to be eliminated is the "backyard breeders" who have no clue about what they are doing. i'm sure if you looked at where the dogs that attack, i would bet a lot of money they came from an ignorant breeder that thought two dogs would make cute puppies and off they went. that's one of the biggest problems with all animals, especially dogs. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 1:02 PM:

beachluvr wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:41 PM:

" to Sweetcheeks,,(in regard to the frequently aggressive breeds,) I totally agree with your idea. And to take it one step further, as we all know, it is the law to have your pet innoculated with the proper shots, such as rabies, distemper, etc. From the breeder to the buyer, there should be required to be a paper trail that is registered with the govt. And your idea of a special license and training is perfect. The owner should be required to have the dog registered with a trainer to determine it's disposition, and also be required to have scheduled follow up visits to see how it is progressing. I love dogs so much, that when I look into the eyes of one of them, I can't see the underlying "snap" factor that some of them have. And I'm sure I'm not alone. A trained professional knows what signs/body language to look for, and just as training a growing child will be rewarding, so it should be for a pet. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:31 PM:

" re-'donredbird': I'm sure that the police officer would have been worse off if it would have been a pack of pit bulls, I bet he's thankful that it wasn't, and I'm sure that it is a far different scenario than two pitbulls mauling a 4 year old or adult. I feel that you are mistaken about the Pomeranian trying to swallow an infants head. The mouth of a Pom would not possibly fit around an infants head. As for comparing animals with human, I agree humans do revert to animal instictive behaviors but can be conditioned to be more civil by properly developing the conscience through education wether it be by way religion, or dicipline! But how can you affectively curb animalistic instinctive behavior with an animal. ? You can't reason with an animal! "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:24 PM:

" donredbird:
No, I do not think the trainers should be held responsible. The fact still remains that the owner is with the dog everyday and should know the signs of a dog that is aggressive. I do not however think it is fair to charge the trainer when they do not have control or possession of the dog at the time of the attack. The difference between dogs that kill and small dogs is that normally Chihuahuas and other very small lap dogs are provoked. I am talking about all dogs that are known for consistantly attacking/killing without being provoked. Just like the baby in this story. "

2eachTheirOwn wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:49 AM:

" To MM: Helen Keller owned an Akita. The first one was Kamikaze-go. When he died his brother Kenzan-go was given to her as a gift by the Japanese government in 1939. She is credited with introducing the Akita breed to the United States not the Pit Bull Breed.
I have owned Akitas for many years. When I became a mother I kept my dogs, but kept a watchful eye on them. They are used as babysitters in some parts of Japan, but they are still large dogs that can have a reputation for being dangerous. I have never owned a pit bull but I have seen very nice ones and some that are mean. I think that is has to do partially with the way the dog was raised, but it also has to do with its temperament and genetics. Basically if something can kill your child you should be smart enough to recognize it and take precautions. It’s just common sense people!!!! "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:48 AM:

" To Jwill1583 You said: Pit bull supporters only get upset when people turn it into a witch hunt and want them banned. that's what i stand up to. EXACTLY!!! That is the only reason I get upset too. I really could care less if people don’t like these dogs or hate them or don’t trust them or don’t believe that they CAN be good family pets etc….That’s fine. What bothers me is the comments like ban them all or kill them all because neither one of them is a solution to the problem. I know some people are going to say “well killing that whole breed off will eliminate the problem”. People who love fighting dogs and watch dog fights are just going to find a new breed to train to fight if there is no pit bulls. And banning them only puts them into the hands of criminals who are the ones doing the dog fights which is why these dogs attack…because that’s what they were trained to do. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 11:03 AM:

" 4nubbs, the Pomeranian tried to swallow the infants head, and the child died of head trauma. No the chihuahua's did not cause life/limb threatening damage but you said and I quote "I never once heard of a Pomeranian or Chihuahua mauling a 4 year old let alone an adult and I am sure that if either of the breeds were to have, there would be a media frenzy to cover such a story" I was simply providing evidence to the contrary. There was no media frenzy for the story, and both breeds have attacked people. Also my dog reacted before I could, she bit me, and then immediately before any reaction from myself or anyone else she licked the place where she had bit. But, if you insist that it is out of fear, the same thing could be said for people, do they feel bad for the sake of feeling bad or because they will get in trouble? "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:55 AM:

" sweetcheeks, I did read your post, what I am saying is that it wouldn't be just any breed deemed dangerous, it would have to be all breeds, because all can attack, and be considered dangerous, as well as cats being considered dangerous. I'm saying that your limitations would include more than just a few breeds of dogs, and would have to cover all breeds of dogs and cats. Also, why couldn't the trainer be held responsible, it was there job to make sure that the dog was trained properly not to attack, shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions as well? "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:51 AM:

" MISSterious, I wasn't saying they normal kill people, but 4nubbs said he had never heard of it happening, and if it did it would be a media frenzy, I gave evidence to the contrary that is all. You give the perfect reason as to why Pit Bulls kill more people than the littler dogs, their bite is more powerful and they are bigger. If a Pomeranian were the size of Pit Bulls it would be just as likely as that Pomeranian could have killed more people. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:46 AM:

" bnblogger, really it isn't would you agree that the four most instinctual urges of animals are that of shelter, food, mating, and the protection of those three? If so, humans do the same, we strive for shelter, food, mating and the protection of all three, while we are more elaborate in our drives for these things, the instinctual drive is still the same. "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:24 AM:

" As far as printing pit bulls in the headline, i don't have a problem with that, as long as it's like that when there are attack stories for other breeds. I've seen articles that reads"family dog attacks" or something along those lines. Only in the article does it say the breed. The other issue with that is reporters at the seen often are mistaken on the breed, and it may not even be a pit bull. there are a lot of breeds that get mistaken for pit bulls. anyways, i can agree to disagree with you on some of these issues. I'm glad you see some of my point. If people don't like the breed, that's fine. That's our right as Americans. Pit bull supporters only get upset when people turn it into a witch hunt and want them banned. that's what i stand up to. Thanks "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 19, 2008 10:20 AM:

" the only thing I was blaming the newspapers was the fact that they more often choose to put only negative stories in. They should report the news accurately, good or bad. I just wish they would print more positive stories. there are a lot out there. I think someone else said something like "maybe people aren't as interested in the feel good, positive story". If that's the case, then my point is proven. "

sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:53 AM:

" donredbird:
You did not even bother to read my post did you? Here is the post:

The limitations I would suggest would be the special license and training. There should be pamplets handed out to anyone who buys one. The breeders should be required to have them printed and for anyone whose dogs attack and kill should receive criminal charges automatically. Those restrictions should be placed on any dog deemed dangerous not just pitbulls. "

Notice the words "should be placed on ANY dog deemed dangerous NOT just pitbulls. If they attack after they are trained, well the owners would have been fully warned of their sudden snap nature so the responsibility would fall on them. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Pomeranian and Chihuahuas do not normally kill people UNLESS it’s an infant or small child. This is why PARENTS need to be responsible dog owners no matter what the size or breed of dog and protect their child. That’s why in my opinion its not a good idea to have dogs around infants…. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Re: MISSterious wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:48 AM:-Very well said on this post. You know, people don’t HAVE to read these articles either. Read the title of this article, that says it all, if you don’t like what the title says, well don’t click on it or read it. I know many people who choose not to read papers or watch the news because it’s too depressing with all the crime and violence. That’s certainly not the newspapers fault- that is what’s happening in our world today, sad but true!! Its not to say they don’t ever print a “feel good story” but seems like those are far and few. Maybe they choose not to print as many of those stories because people aren’t as interested in those, or maybe that’s how little “good” articles we have. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:17 AM:

" re-'donredbird' The higher learning I was speaking of was of having the ability to form a conscience. Was the reaction of the dog conditioned out of fear? As far as the pomeranian's killing of an infant, did it maul the infant or suffocate it by laying on the infant? Could it be that the Pomeranian story was manufactured and really didn't happen? And did the police officer die in the Chihuahua pack attack, require amputation of an appendage, or simply had to splash on some bactine and take some ribbing from his fellow officers? And my difference between a gun and a pitbull are that because pit bulls are breathing they are also unpredictable. I am the conscience for my weapon! "

sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:17 AM:

MISSterious wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:16 AM:

" donredbird: when Pomeranian and chihuahuas attack people, they don't normally kill them. Pit bulls do because they are more vicious, when they bite down they do NOT let go until they are ready or until they are killed themselves. Their jaws, their bite, is more powerful. THAT is why we hear of them killing more people, that's because THEY KILL MORE PEOPLE. Now, obviously the Pomeranian and Chihuahua made the news or else you wouldn't have heard about that happening, all the way in California. There's no "media frenzy" about this story. There is a READER frenzy. There is a difference. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:09 AM:

" donredbird:
Actually, not itsn't. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Sweetcheecks, First I would argue that any dog could be deemed dangerous. If trained to, neglected, abused, unhealthy(mentally or physically), any dog could be dangerous, as I told 4nubbs even Pomeranian and chihuahuas can attack people. So it would have to be for all dogs, and on the same token while it does happen often a a house can can severely injure or maim so I would deem them dangerous as well. And, I have to ask, what if an animal attacks and kills despite the "professional" training, while I am in agreement with you that any animal that attacks and kills a person the owner should be arrested, shouldn't the professional trainer be held liable as well, for not properly training the animal? "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 19, 2008 9:03 AM:

" donredbird:
Comparing dogs to people is like comparing apples to oranges. Unlike dogs, people do not run on instinct only. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:55 AM:

" bnblogger, that is debatable. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:54 AM:

" 4nubbs, Define High Learning? As far as a conscious I would disagree with you, on that, I have seen my dog bite me(i deserved it) and then immediate show regret on her face and then start licking the place where she bit me.And, In 2001 a Pomeranian killed a 6 week old baby. And, it obviously wasn't the media frenzy that yo suggested it would have or you might have heard about it. And in 2005 a pack of Chihuahuas attacked a police officer. Again no media frenzy there. And, your comparison between guns and dogs, I would say that the difference between a gun and a dog is that the dog is alive, and sentient. "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Jwill: In regards to: "But you can paint the wrong picture by leaving out facts that paint something other than what you want to. (and I'm not talking about this story with leaving out facts) "....That's interesting that you say that....Especially since the manic-pitbull freaks are getting their panties in a bunch because the Pantagraph printed an Associated Press article that named the breed of the dog in this and other stories. Yet, you say it is wrong for the media to leave out certain facts in other stories because that could be misleading. What is not biased and completely hypocritical about that? "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:48 AM:

" JWill: Okay, I see your point, a little, however the Pantagraph is merely printing Associated Press articles. The Pantagraph has a responsibility to fill their paper each day with current and up-to-date news. Don't blame the Pantagraph when the news happens to be negative, IT IS STILL NEWS - and the Pantagraph has a responsibility to print news whether good or bad. Don't blame the Pantagraph when the news happens to appear more negative than positive on certain days, BLAME THE PEOPLE OR THINGS responsible for making that bad news happen. It certainly isn't the fault of the people reporting it. And, if people choose only to read one news paper or watch the news from just one local specific area, don't blame that area's media because PEOPLE aren't opening their own minds about news that happens on a national, international, and global level. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 19, 2008 8:33 AM:

" donredbird:
Comparing dogs to people is like comparing apples to oranges. Unlike dogs, people do not run on instinct only. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 19, 2008 7:56 AM:

" donredbird:
The limitations I would suggest would be the special license and training. There should be pamplets handed out to anyone who buys one. The breeders should be required to have them printed and for anyone whose dogs attack and kill should receive criminal charges automatically. Those restrictions should be placed on any dog deemed dangerous not just pitbulls. "

anchor wrote on Sep 19, 2008 6:42 AM:

" Townie here - that's how I orignially heard the funny little saying...but thought it sounded good here with DOG. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 19, 2008 12:20 AM:

" re-'donredbird' Higher learning or for the most part a conscience. I am as weary of other human beings as I am of vicious dogs. Problem is we can't ban Human beings. I never once heard of a Pomeranian or Chihuahua mauling a 4 year old let alone an adult and I am sure that if either of the breeds were to have, there would be a media frenzy to cover such a story. In the 1800's, the population wasn't what it is today. You had vast expanses and secluded areas that would require the protection from a pitbull. Attacks from these types of dogs would have gone unnoticed on a national scale, yet it seems these attacks are always rising every year as the population increases. Rural and urban America is quite different, and communities are more populated and close together. Ordinances and laws are meant for civility, welfare and security of the communities. If it is ok to create laws banning me from firing a weapon within city limits despite the 2nd amendment, why isn't it ok to ban certain breeds of dogs within the same boundries? "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:27 PM:

" sweetcheecks, what would you suggest in the sense of limitations? I don't disagree but I'm curious about what you think. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:25 PM:

" bnblogger, define higher intelligence. And, yes we value humans more than dogs, but shouldn't it upset you more than more small children and babies are killed by humans than dogs. Shouldn't that make you more skeptical of humans over dogs, surely we have shone that we are more aggressive than any dog.
The belief shared by many in the scientific community say that environment is a determining factor in a persons behavior, and I have never heard of a human being genetically predisposed for murder. Well many in the scientific community say that dog temperament is largely of their environment and how they are train, raised, taken care of that can cause them to be more aggressive. So I ask, in this instance what makes us so different? "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 5:03 PM:

" MISSterious- I agree with you comepletely that only printing positive news would be biased. I hope that people want to be educated. My point is that I have a problem when only the negative news is printed. Let's face it, there are people out there that only base their decisions on the limited media exposure they get from their local newspaper. So it is everyone's duty as Americans to make sure the media is giving all sides to all stories. But we all know the media paints whatever picture they want. I'm not saying they are lying and what they print isn't factual. But you can paint the wrong picture by leaving out facts that paint something other than what you want to. (and I'm not talking about this story with leaving out facts) "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:13 PM:

" JWILL: Whether it's good news or it's bad news, IT'S NEWS!! Your definition of "bias" is very suspect. It would be biased to only print POSITIVE news. And just because news is negative doesn't mean others don't want to hear about it. It's called: Having a clue about what goes on outside your front door. And most people prefer to be in the know, rather than living in ignorance. "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:11 PM:

" JWILL: Pray tell, what is the positive side to this story where two vicious pit bulls tear and bit the life out of a defenseless little baby? "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 3:50 PM:

" donredbird:
It is something called higher intellegence. I place much more value on a human life than any animal. People are worth much more.

Jwill:
The same thing can be said about people who defend pitts. It wont lead to anything but high blood pressure because it doesnt do you any good either.
People wont eat their words on the stats of pittbulls until pits no longer kill people. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 3:25 PM:

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 3:09 PM:

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:47 PM:

" donredbird:
I serioulsy do not think a ban will do any good. People will get them illegally. People that want those dogs bad enough wont mind limitations. I know I wont even if I am told I had to have them for a Chihuahua. Responsible owners know the limitations really wont change the way they do things anyways. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:40 PM:

" I do not think those limitations should be placed on just pitts. I do feel they need to be placed on ANY animal that attacks/kills a child. I do think though in actual defense of the pitts that the Presa Canario's are deemed more dangerous. This is a rare breed and not heard of very often but these dogs are deadly when taught to guard. They are the ones I mentioned ealier about the NY lawyers. You will be charged with a crime if they attack. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:35 PM:

" I have not been argueing with you at all. Again if you want to believe that go ahead its your choice. I also have never claimed to be an expert on anything. Again you are attacking someone that has done nothing to you because I dont show affection for a pittbull. I show affection to any dog that does not come at me aggressivly and that includes pitts. I dont dislike them I just don't trust them so I dont care to own one but i will definalty enjoy someone else's and I have and will continue to do so. cont.. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Imacynic2, I agree with the second half of your comment, but all the information I have found says that the average Pit Bull is great with people, strangers, adults, children, but aggressive towards other dogs, however when neglected or treated poorly they can become simply aggressive or mean like most dogs can when put through the same circumstances. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:15 PM:

" beachluvr I have no problems with having legislation that states that dogs must be trained by professions, but you would not be able to limit it to a few breeds, it would inevitably have to be all breeds. Every dog can bite and every dog can kill. But, the question comes, if a dog does bite and kill who is responsible, is it the owners or is the professional trainer then? I would like to see people train their pets themselves, and treat them well. And, I would say don't by a dog if your ultimate responsibility of it is to simply chain it up in the back yard. Get the dogs used to people of all ages, so they are comfortable around them, but don't leave your kids unattended with your dog, as even a dog that is playing can hurt a child. And, of course don't beat or neglect them, as that makes them mean. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 2:02 PM:

" bnblogger, what makes us so different from them?
Again, I'm not even a fan of Pit Bulls, but to say that a breed should be banned for the actions of a few is ridiculous. And, I will say again less than 1% of the Pit Bull population has fatally attacked a person. You say stats don't matter, but then you try to call on facts, well the fact remains that Pit Bulls on average finish higher than Golden Retrievers(the breed that is commonly thought of as the American Family Dog) in Temperament tests. Even the CDC says that training and environment shapes a dog's behavior more than genetics. "

imacynic2 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:56 PM:

" People need to be responsible for their choices - they chose to have pit bulls despite knowing they are dangerous to have around children. They clearly should have had them chained or secured further. They will suffer horrendously for their mistake. The important thing is that people need to learn to watch their dogs/domestic animals closely for signs of aggression especially around children. I specifically chose a non-agressive dog breed and then further trained him to be very submissive - especially around children - they can dress him up - take food away from him - wrestle him - he would never hurt them, but I still watch him/them like a hawk when they are together - its the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. "

beachluvr wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Dear Donredbird,, with all due respect, I could care less about statistics right now. A BABY IS DEAD, by the attack of 2 Pit Bull dogs. I KNOW that other breeds attack. I completely agree with (BLOOMINGTON GIRLS), 11:49am post. But to take it one step further, with the other breeds that you listed in your 9:12 am post to 4nubbs, maybe Bloomington girls idea should pertain to those also. Laws need to be enacted, that requires someone that wants to own a breed that has been found to be more aggressive than others, to be trained by a professional as to how to control them. At their own expense. Maybe that would make them take more responsibility when it comes to learning how to keep them tethered to a leash, around children or the general public. As I stated before, noone could love their dog more than I love mine, a min pin, but I am smart enough to realize that as small as he is, he still has teeth that can bite. Even though he seems to love everyone, I watch him constantly around strangers or kids, that move quickly and can startle him. "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Again you two, i'm done arguing on here with you. Seriously, look at the majority of the most commented articles on here. Who's there arguing with people? bnblogger and sweetcheeks. That's what you guys do. Does the Pantagraph pay you or something? I just find it hard to believe that you two are experts in everything the paper has an article about. That's why i said, i'm done talking to you. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Jwill:
Quoting fact and bashing are two very different things. I was not talking badly about them but if you want to believe that you go right ahead. I am sorry if the facts make them look bad. I do feel the dogs need some serious limitations. Every responsible pittbull owner wont mind the restrictions if it means they get to keep their dogs but for those dogs that kill there should be criminal charges. A great example of what should be done is those two NY lawyers that went to prison for their dogs attacking and killing a neighbor trying to unlock her apartment door. They were those dogs from the Canary Islands. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:56 PM:

" Jwill:
Anyone that doesnt express their love for pits are haters according to you so get over it. You defenders are in the minority. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Jwill:
Anyone that doesnt express their love for pits are haters according to you so get over it. You defenders are in the minority. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:24 PM:

" donredbird:

just in case you didnt know:
There is a BIG difference between people and animals LOL "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:03 PM:

" bnblogger, human parents have killed their kids before, does that mean that all parents will kill their kids? "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:59 AM:

" saying newspapers are biased is not saying what they report isn't factual. it's saying that they only report the negative side because that sells. yes this story was an AP story. the pantagraph can choose whether or not to post it. but they know that it will stir things up to put it in their paper. why don't they print AP articles that you can easily find about the positive things pits do? because it doesn't sell. anyways, pit bull lovers, focus your time on more important things. work with a foster group. help get the word out about over breeding and spay/neutering. get your dogs trained properly. that's how people like bnblogger and sweetcheeks will eat their words. thanks and happy posting "

Jwill1583 wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:59 AM:

" so i've taken a few days off from arguing with bnblogger and sweetcheeks and whoever else wanted to talk badly about pit bulls. and i must say, i don't think pitbullmom and pitbullfan or whatever their name is are the ones attacking people. looks like you two are just involved as they are, just on the opposite side. honestly, i challenge all the people that have posted here defending this great breed of dog to contain yourself and let the pit bull haters have their fun. nothing will ever come of posting comments on here accept high blood pressure from dealing with ignorant people that refuse to educate themselves with facts, other than what they read in the newspaper. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:49 AM:

" There needs to be special licensing to own a pit bull. I own a pit bull myself & I am ALL FOR having restrictions and licensing to own one. I’m against banning this entire breed because I don't think that’s a reasonable solution. However if we start having restrictions and licensing to own one, this will weed out the bad owners and hopefully eliminate the whole underground fighting scene which is the number one reason the pit bull attack stats are so high. If a pit bull attacks unprovoked, chances are VERY HIGH that dog was not trained properly. Pit Bulls require a lot of training and attention (just like any dog) so if you want to own a pit bull, then you should not be opposed to going thru licensing to obtain one. My opinion is that NO dog no matter what the size or breed should be around infants!! All dogs all breeds are still animals #1 before they are anything else and animals can be unpredictable. There is where the parent’s responsibility comes into play, if they choose to have animals in or around their house; they need to take the necessary precautions to protect their child. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:21 AM:

" forgot to add that they will be charged if these dogs hurts their children. Perhaps if there was a law that made it automatic that they be charged if they hurt anyone at all then people would work harder to make sure it doesnt happen anymore. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:12 AM:

" All the stats dont really matter. The fact still remains that pitbulls kill more than any other breed. How many more babies and small children have to die before something is done. The same BS defense is getting more and more worn out with every new report of a child being killed by an unprovoked pit. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:26 AM:

" beachluvr you do realize that more than just Pit Bulls bite people right? They are on average 4.7 million people bitten by dogs per year. According to the CDC dog bites send 368,000 people to the ER per year(around 1,008 per day). Are they all Pit Bull attacks? During the mid 1800s the Pit Bull was the all American family dog. During the 1900s it was used in movies as well as war propaganda posters as an American dog representative. Pit bulls also, on average score the fourth highest on temperament tests, with roughly 85%. The CDC even states that how a dog is trained, and raised is one of the leading factors as to how a dog will act. Again I'm not condoning what the Pit Bulls did, but to condemn a breed for the actions of a few is ridiculous as I have stated previously. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:15 AM:

" beachluvr:
Please allow me to add to your post.

Since people who defend these dogs to the end can not seem to get it that they should not be allowed to live in a home with children perhaps a law stating there will be criminal charges on the parents that buy these dogs and insist they stay around their children. I don't dislike these dogs at all I just do not trust them. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:12 AM:

" 4nubbs I believe we may have different statistics, because from what I have found and according to dogbitelaw.com German Shepards, Siberian Huskies, Chow-mix, as well as pits, rottweilers and bulldogs. I have also found that many of the new stories that first report most dog bite incidents, assume it was an attack by pit-bulls before the dogs can be identified. Also, I have seen estimates for Pit-Bull populations which put them anywhere from 600,000 to a million, which even at the lowest estimate the number of fatal Put-Bull attacks are less than 1%. Again, I'm not defending the specific dogs, but to condemn a breed for the actions of a few is ridiculous. As, I said before because some humans have killed does that mean that we all will? "

beachluvr wrote on Sep 18, 2008 8:42 AM:

" HELLO???? What is WRONG with all of you people?? You have completely begun to ignore what this article is all about! The DEATH of a BABY by two dogs that could NOT have been provoked into attacking this innocent child. PLEASE, put yourselves in the position of being the grandmother or parent of this baby. THINK about the PAIN that this child felt while these dogs were ripping it apart. ANY ONE of you that are posting these blogs in defense of this breed, picture this event happening to YOUR baby. I am first and foremost a dog lover, but I am not so naive to believe that certain breeds, (like this one, i.e. being given the name "PIT" bull, bred to "PIT" fight) are not stronger,and more aggressive than others.) They have jaws that "LOCK" onto their prey. A responsible pet parent, should NEVER say that their "child" could not be capable of causing injury to another animal or human. Maybe it's time certain breeds come with warning papers stating that they have been known to "snap", and they choose to own one "at their own risk." God bless this tiny newest victim. "

rukiddn wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:16 AM:

" To Bloomington girl:
way to fire back with a witty comment! You don't understand my post, so don't try to reply to it. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:12 AM:

" Here is 2007's updated statistics. 35 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2007. Pit bull type dogs were responsible for 60%. Pit bulls make up approximately 2-9% of the US dog population.
The combination of pit bulls (21), rottweilers (4) and American bulldogs (3) accounted for 80% of all fatal attacks. 51% of the attacks occurred to children (11 years and under) and 49% occurred to adults (21 years and older). Of the adults, 76% occurred to ages 55 and older. 46% of fatal attacks in 2007 involved multiple dogs; 23% involved chained dogs. 71% of the attacks occurred on owner property and 29% off owner property. Of the off-property attacks, 70% (7) were attributed to pit bulls. 60% of the victims were female; 40% of the victims were male. Of the female victims, nearly half (10) were 55 years and older. The state of Texas had the most fatalities (7). Of these fatalities, 86% (6) were attributed to pit bulls. "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:06 AM:

" re:'donredbird' So there is a general census that has an accurate count of how many pitbulls there are in this country? What about cross or offbreeds with a pitbull lineage? I questioned the same statistics which stated that Pit bulls make up approximately 2-9% of the US dog population. There were 30 reported fatal dog attacks in 2006 and in the same report and 53%(16) were committed by pitbulls although that number rose to 80% when combined with Rottweilers(8)!47% of the attacks occurred to children (11 years and under) and 53% occurred to adults (21 years and older). Of the adults, 17% occurred to ages 55 and older. 53% of fatal attacks in 2006 involved multiple dogs; 13% involved chained dogs.
87% of the attacks occurred on owner property and 13% off owner property. Of the off-property attacks, 100% (4) were attributed to pit bulls. 30% of the victims were female; 70% of the victims were male. Of the male victims, nearly half (10) were 11 years and under. The state of Texas had the most fatalities (6). Of these fatalities, 67% (4) were attributed to pit bulls and 33% (2) to rottweilers. "

donredbird wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:55 PM:

" You know I wasn't going to comment any more than I had, but I have to ask tnz650 you do know that other dogs have killed as well right? And, besides that more breeds have injured or scared children of all ages. The Journal of Applied Animal Behavior said from their study that Pit Bulls were "average to below average" on aggression towards strangers. And, the number of mortal Pit Bull attacks is less than 1% of the entire Pit Bull population. Because a number of Pit Bulls have killed doesn't mean they all will. If that were the case, everyone human is a killer in waiting because some humans have killed people. "

seasons in the sun wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:33 PM:

" 4_nubbs your either biased or racist for accurately identifing breeds man or beast these days. If they are bad i say identify them w/ a complete description "

Townie here... wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:23 PM:

" Anchor! I have a t-shirt that says that, but it's about cats instead of dogs... :o)

Joking aside...this is sad...Sorry for the family's loss. "

tnz650 wrote on Sep 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

" Well, there's BloomingtonGirl and PitBullMom again defending their precious, harmless breed of dog. It's pointless to try to reason with these women. They see what they want and don't care about the danger to anyone else. They've hashed thru these same sad arguments in other stories where Pit Bulls have attacked and killed babies and they will continue to do so in the future. Babies will die, they will defend. I'm not even going to bother with them. I just want you to remember their Names because when the next "Pit Bull kills..." article appears, you'll see them there, defending the indefensible. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

" anchor:
LOL too funny "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 2:56 PM:

" anchor:
LOL too funny "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 17, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Oh my god it's like I just stepped into the packed hallways of a busy Junior High and the kiddies can't fling their insults fast enough or far enough! I don't know why I assumed you had to be an adult to post here. I guess being an adult doesn't necessarily mean you have an adult mentality. Although, it is almost humorous how much poo is being flung. It never fails to happen with an article about pit bulls... "

anchor wrote on Sep 17, 2008 2:25 PM:

" People sure do get fired up about dogs. I mean, I like dogs, but I can't eat a whole one. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:23 PM:

" btw..
Do NOT call me sweetpea. That doesn't sound right coming from another female unless it is my mother or granny. "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 1:18 PM:

" If you don't want to be called stupid don't act stupid. You act like it is all about the dogs and it isn't. Do you even care that a child lost her life to these beasts? Every story that comes out about a pitbull attacking or killing and it is the same thing. The same BS defense story. It is toatlly pathetic. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Oh BNBlogger, calm down sweetpea its going to be okay!! Call me stupid all you want if thats what makes you feel better! Thats a great way to get your point across, throwing insults. Good job big kid! "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Ok, makes sense to attack people for a comment not related to the story. The attack itself is not related to the story so.....

hey kettle...its pot...guess what?

your black! "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:42 AM:

" bloomington girl:
Stop being stupid. Just because I don't care about the dogs does NOT mean I do not care about the main subject of the story and it is NOT the dogs it is the BABY they killed!!!!!!! I mean I dont care of they are banned or if they are not. If they are irraticated or not. I won't have these vicious animals around my kids period. The story is about them killing a defensless baby. Those 2 dogs deserved to die. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:34 AM:

" To: rukiddn-Okay I don't understand, why are you reading these comments and following up with this story if you tired of it?! You and BNblogger are something else!! "I don't care I don't care" but yet I am going to keep posting....you guys sure care about saying you don't care LOL "

rukiddn wrote on Sep 17, 2008 11:09 AM:

" Okay, I for one am tired of reading and re-reading the same comments here. First, make your point and leave it alone. Quit bickering! To quote a previous post, go play with your dog. Second, why is it always about the Pantagraph being biased? The Pantagraph didn't even write the story. AP did. Nuff said. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:55 AM:

" The media is not biased for printing the TRUTH! If this is what the breed of dog it was, well a newspaper is not going to omit that, and they shouldn’t have to! However we all know that sex, drugs and violence is what sells so they COULD choose to not do the story at all…. But lets think for a minute: a story about a service dog or a story about a dog attack….you know the dog attack is going to generate more interest! We know that and the papers know that! "

Chicago wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Think first-
I also know of two people who were attacked by pit bulls when they were babies and have scars now. In one of the cases though the dog was trained to be vicious and when my friend tried to play with the dog (as a baby) it attacked him and the other one was completely unprovoked and the guy kept the dog that attacked the baby! I don't want any dogs around my baby regardless of what kind of breed it is, they are way too exciteable anyways. Just from knowing about pit bull attacks though that come from nowhere I hope other people with pit bulls will have enough respect for people who have children or babies to put their dog in a kennel or in another room during a visit, dogs are not people, they are animals and shouldn't be treated as humans. I think that's why a lot of people feel the need to defend dogs and cats. "

Bloomington Girl wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:47 AM:

" BNBlogger-If you don’t care about these dogs or what happens to them, then why are you wasting so much time posting about this story?? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense! There are obviously people who do care so that really shouldn’t be of much concern to you when you could care less about these dogs. Hey we are all entitled to our own opinions about these types of dogs, you don’t have to like them, you don’t have like the fact that people do like them, but stop wasting your time on a story you don’t care anything about! After all that’s what these comment sections are for, for people to leave their opinions! Again, like I said it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black! "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Frankly, it frightens me the number of people that are on the side of the pit bull in the story, and not on the baby that was killed. "

MISSterious wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Dog: I can only assume you are being sarcastic. Surely you aren't really calling the Pantagraph biased, for running an ASSOCIATED PRESS article about pit bulls that ripped apart a helpless baby?! That's bull (no pun intended) and you know it. It's not the news articles that are giving pits a bad name, its the PITS giving PITS the bad name! It's not like it was a ferocious newspaper reporter that went at that baby teeth first. And something tells me that if a little wiener dog or a French poodle was responsible for the attack, then THAT breed would have been reported as well. Duh! "

4_nubbs wrote on Sep 17, 2008 9:18 AM:

" Re:'dog' Biased for accurately identifying the breed of dog that mauled this infant? Could it be that you are the one being biased? Comparing your version of what is objectionably newsworthy, which version would be more accurate, yours or the Pantagraphs? The problem with your version would be that one would not be fully or accurately informed if that 'fact' that they were pitbulls, as you yourself put it, was left out! Why are many suggesting or pushing for that fact to be omitted? I feel that one should be made fully aware of the circumstances involved so that one can make an accurate judgement or opinion for themselves. Regardless of what your stance on pitbulls are, the arguments, pro or con, are going to be the same. At least allow for an accurate report or account so others can make up their own minds! "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:09 AM:

" think first:
Excellent post thank you for sharing.
In addition, People with these dogs need to realize they are not family pets and should never be around small children. Stories like this one prove that but the die hard pit owners continue to defend a very dangerous animal. If you are going to own one keep it kenneled away from defensless children. "

dog wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:03 AM:

" maybe if this article wasn't so biased (as they usually are in the Pantagraph) and just said two family dogs (instead of pit bulls) people wouldn't focus so much attention on that fact. But, it wouldn't be newsworthy if it just said "two dogs" because they know how much people will pay attention if they see "pit bulls" "

bnblogger wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:00 AM:

" bloomington girl:
I am not the one that is attacking everyone that does not say outwardly positive things about these dogs. So yea, she is way too absorbed. I could care less what happens to these dogs or what doesn't. But hey you pit owners stick together like glue since your in the minority. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

See Today's Mortgage Rates

Weekly New Car Bargains