Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Donate to DogsBite.org
Please donate to support our work

DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  20 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 12:32 PM  |  Flag  
But they just want to please their owners!

More pit bull lovers - very *pleased* I'm sure.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 1:17 PM  |  Flag  
If you had asked any one of them up to the attack, I'm sure they would have told you, "My dog would lick you to death before hurting you." Yet another group of pit owners who has learned the hard way you can't trust those dogs. At least it was the owners who paid the price and not a neighbor or someone's child. Now they get to be responsible for their OWN medical bills.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 1:24 PM  |  Flag  
And if these people do not have medical insurance, the people of Montgomery county will pay!

Anonymous Dude I Bagged Ur Pit  |  5/04/2009 2:30 PM  |  Flag  
And that's why pit bulls need to be regulated, with part of that regulation requiring proof of insurance, including medical coverage for the owners themselves.

I don't otherwise have a problem with pits attacking their owners. One minute they're yammering on about how they'll only lick you to death, just need to be raised right... blah, blah, blah. But the next minute they're headed into surgery without medical insurance, and that burden falls on the rest of us. The attack on their owner - funny. The cost to us - not funny at all.

(If you're a former pit bull owner, please wave your stump in the air and give me an AMEN!)

Anonymous mrs.Poodle  |  5/04/2009 3:11 PM  |  Flag  
I wonder if medical insurance always covers being attacked by your own pit bull.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 4:05 PM  |  Flag  
This is a good question. Personal health insurance often does not cover "accidents," it covers care when a person "falls ill." While perhaps many health insurance plans would cover partial payment of such an attack (a pit bull owner being attacked by his or her own dog), the question would be "how much" coverage would it provide?

Homeowners insurance covers "accidents" in a household; car insurance covers "accidents" in a car; health insurance covers you when you get cancer...state laws vary on these issues. It sure would be nice to have a knowledgeable health insurance person chime in.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 6:15 PM  |  Flag  
Perhaps pit bull owners should be charged higher health insurance premiums, like smokers.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 8:57 PM  |  Flag  
Homeowners insurance covers liability and accidents on your property for guests only, not family members. It would cover the medical bills if your pit bull bit another person, whether on your property or off it, but it would not cover injuries from your pit bull to yourself or your family members. That would be covered under your medical insurance, if you had any.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 11:15 PM  |  Flag  
I'm sure if you were covered that one time, you could kiss your health insurance good-bye if you got another pit, or watch your premium skyrocket.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/04/2009 11:30 PM  |  Flag  
I wonder if someone monitoring that station blog is a pit nutter. I was there earlier, and there were several comments countering the pit nutters. Most of those comments, including one I left, have been taken down, but the pit nutter comments remain up, even one comparing people who are for BSL to Nazis. My comment was in no way derogatory, stuck to the topic, and did not use profanity. Hmmmm....

Blogger bitbypit  |  5/04/2009 11:53 PM  |  Flag  
We have had reports of a similar nature from different newspapers. The pit bull issue is a controversial one and newspaper staffs fall on both sides. Next time, "save" your comment, then report it here if the newspaper removes it.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/05/2009 2:12 AM  |  Flag  
Here is the 911 call. I don't think insurance was a player with this family!


At least the victims here were consenting adults and not an innocent.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/05/2009 6:09 AM  |  Flag  
Enter now the age old question:

Who bred and sold Rocky? Are they still pumping out pups?

Anonymous FoolMeOnce  |  5/05/2009 6:44 AM  |  Flag  
About insurance, most will cover accidents, however, they will first try to determine if there is another party that is liable and should pay. For example, I have a bad neck. Whenever I need care for my neck, whatever insurance company I have at the time has always sent me an "Accident" form to fill out, asking about the specifics of the injury and if someone else could be liable. Neck injuries commonly happen due some sort of accident, so when they see "neck injury" on the claim form, it automatically generates an "is this someone's else's problem?" form. They have always paid in the end, because it is a chronic condition.

Anonymous FoolMeOnce  |  5/05/2009 6:48 AM  |  Flag  
Now I'm curious about the comments on the article. I also noticed that every comment was pro-pit. The pro-pit comments would reference an anti-pit comment, but I could not find the referenced comment. So, I am going to post an anti-pit comment and see what happens.

Obviously, in this day and age, there are very few journalists that no how to report without their own personal bias. Remember the article about the pit attack where the journalist had more info about how great pits are than she did about the attack and the victims?

Anonymous FoolMeOnce  |  5/05/2009 7:00 AM  |  Flag  
I just checked the article, and there are some anti-pit comments there now. Also, in the latest video, the owner admitted to police that Rocky had bitten people before. I guess they never reported the bites? I bet that owner feels like an idiot now that his mother is missing a thumb and his brother practically lost his arm. 2500 stitches and 12 hours of surgery later...I can't even wrap my head around 2500 stitches...

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/05/2009 9:24 AM  |  Flag  
On biased (and unresearched) journalism:

Look no further than the recent Sports Illustrated article of Vick's dogs. Best Friends and Bad Rap might as well have paid the writer. It was a horrifically, unbalanced propaganda piece.

(Search for "What happened to Vick's dogs," I refuse to link to this story.)

Contrast this to the 1987 Sports Illustrated article written by EM Swift about the pit bull problem. Back in the 80s, journalists actually did investigative journalism.


Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/06/2009 1:14 AM  |  Flag  
Bummer -- hope neither of the victims are right handed. If so, about 90% of their daily tasks just went out the window. Gotta wonder how Jason feels about potentially maiming his mother and brother FOR LIFE.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/06/2009 1:41 AM  |  Flag  
Jason obviously didn't care when his dog attacked other people in the past. I would assume the mother and brother didn't care all that much either. They allowed Jason and the pit bull to remain in the trailer.I suppose they were content to think that as long as it happened to someone else, it didn't really matter. They were likely judgment proof. I suppose sometimes "judgment" takes a different form.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/25/2009 11:39 PM  |  Flag  
I personally love when adult owners learn the hard way.
I just think it sucks to be a pitowner's kid.

Post a Comment »