Wednesday, October 28, 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  |  8 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

8 comments:

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/28/2009 2:25 PM  |  Flag  
As far as I am concerned, not a landlord in Massachusetts (other than an absetee slumlord) could now allow a pit bull in a tenants apartment. This ruling should be followed by mandatory spay and neuter laws to slow down the glut of unwanted pit bulls that are being bred by criminals and losers by the thousands. Pit bulls are the dog of choice for low income transients...I would LOVE to know how many pit bull owners actually own their own home. I would like to see the insurance companies beocme more involved, and offer a hotline to people to report neighbors uninsured pit bulls.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/28/2009 5:56 PM  |  Flag  
I love the idea of an insurance company pitbull hotline. That would solve the majority of the cases of neighbors with pitbulls right there.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/29/2009 1:26 AM  |  Flag  
Currently the Dog lobby is trying to sneal through a premptive Anti-BSL Law through the MA State Legislature.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/29/2009 1:11 PM  |  Flag  
If you take a look at Boston Craigslist, its loaded with people dumping their pit bulls, and rescues pleading for folks to adopt out pit bulls. Some pit bulls are dumped on CL, only to appear again and again. Some of the pits dumped are dangerous and aggressive, with owners who plead that their lovable pit "doesn't like kids" or "doesn't like other dogs". Its a disgrace that breed advocates continue to protect the criminal breeders and animal abusers by fighting any reasonable restrictions on breeding, then blame the media, landlords, and everyone on the planet for not running out and adopting one of these dogs, so the thugs and dog fighters can breed more.

Its such a bizzare dynamic...I wish child safety advocates could partner with the insurance companies to work together to reduce risk by providing a hotline for people who want to report an aggressive pit bull, or other dangerous dog.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/30/2009 2:02 AM  |  Flag  
THANK GOD a judge has sent this to a jury: "It is up to a jury to decide whether a pit bull has to bite somebody before it's considered dangerous."

Every jury member -- your normal hardworking American -- understands that pit bulls are dangerous. In the environment of a courtroom, jurors will easily acknowledge the "ugly, invisible elephant in the room."

Blogger P.  |  10/30/2009 5:46 PM  |  Flag  
But jury members just easily be pit bull owners. In these sort of cases, jurors should be asked if they own a pit.

Anonymous Trigger  |  11/06/2009 9:22 PM  |  Flag  
Attorney Bruce Bierhans blogged about this:

"In effect, the court is saying that if a pit bull is involved, you don't necessarily have to show that the dog attacked in the past. The landlord's knowledge that a dog is or may be aggressive may impose a burden on a landlord to be alert for their tenants' safety, particularly where there are complaints from other tenants, or other evidence of "potential" aggression. As stated by Lawyers Weekly, a landlord may now be liable for injuries even though the landlord was not the animal's owner and there was no evidence that the animal had ever attacked anyone before."
---
http://tinyurl.com/yctsz9j

Anonymous Trigger  |  11/06/2009 9:29 PM  |  Flag  
To P.,

I'm sure the jurors are asked this question. A friend of mine was recently asked by the prosecution (in a domestic violence case) what talk radio shows she listens to. She said "NPR" and they booted her (presumed to be a liberal).

Post a Comment »

archives: