Elijah was determined to be "vicious and dangerous" after the dangerous dog hearing.

Statement of Decision
San Francisco, CA - On November 25, 2024, a Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing was held to determine if "Elijah," a male, neutered pit bull met the definition of "vicious and dangerous" set forth in the San Francisco Health Code. DogsBite.org obtained the audio recording of the hearing and the surveillance video of the attack. After combining them, we embedded open caption subtitles. We also inserted red "Alert" notifications to highlight the "exhausted cliches" exhibited by vicious dog owners.

The involved parties include Thomas Newbury, the owner of the victim dog, "Ying Yang;" Elizabeth Jimenez, the dog owner's roommate, who was walking Elijah when he attacked Ying Yang; and Ciara Davis, the owner of Elijah, who did not witness the attack. The attack occurred on Friday, July 5 on Anza Street near George Washington High School. Newbury submitted a complaint to the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit on July 10. This hearing did not occur until nearly 5 months later.

Statement of Decision Description

"On July 10, 2024, Thomas Newbury submitted a complaint to SFPD VDDU regarding a dog bite that allegedly occurred on July 5, 2024. Newbury stated that on the date of the incident he was doing work in his garage while his dog, later identified as Ying Yang, was tied up in the garage as depicted in the video footage he submitted. (Ex. 5.) The attacking dog, later identified as Elijah, pulled the dog walker into Newbury’s garage. Elijah then bit Newbury’s dog’s face, locked on, and would not let go. Newbury ran outside and attempted to get Elijah to release by kicking and punching the dog.

Newbury alleged that the person walking Elijah did not try to pull Elijah off Newbury’s dog and just repeatedly said “I’m sorry.” When Elijah let go, Newbury wanted to call the police and obtain the dog walker’s information, but the dog walker insisted on going home. The dog walker left the scene stating she would return after returning Elijah back home. However, she did not return, and Newbury then took his dog to the hospital." - Statement of Decision - Complaint

The attack video is played at 7:00 minutes followed by Newbury's testimony, which calls out many exhausted cliches recycled by owners of vicious dogs after an attack. The video is harrowing. Newbury screams multiple times at the pit bull, "Let go!" The person walking the pit bull, Jimenez, who was not the owner, does little, except to repeat, "I'm sorry." Newbury testifies, the person "had no control" over the dog, and "no ability or strength to restrain" it, which is routine during pit bull attacks.

Not only do many owners of pit bulls deny the genetics of the breed -- the "bite, hold, and shake" attack style -- but when an attack does occur, they typically have no capacity or tool to get their dog to release. Newbury's dog, and every other non-gripper breed, are consistently at the mercy of pit bull owners who have "no ability or strength to restrain" the dog or force it to release, if it chooses to attack. The result is this video, which likely occurs over 10,000 times per year in the United States.1

"The pit bull Elijah had completely latched onto my dog's jaw," Newbury states. "My dog was helpless, like just struggling to survive."

Newbury testifies that he "repeatedly started hammering the dog" with his fist and "trying to kick it in the jaw to unlatch." As he was doing so, he was also in fear for his own life, asking himself, "What's next?" Was the pit bull going to maul him? "While it's being walked with a harness by a petite individual that was completely outmuscled ... completely incapable of controlling this dog?" he asked. But even for men, successfully "manhandling" a vicious pit bull with only a harness and leash is still difficult.

After the pit bull releases, Jimenez exhibits more exhausted cliches by owners of vicious dogs by refusing to supply her information to Newbury and by promising, she'll "come back" after she returns the dog to its owner. She does neither. "Obviously, they did not come back," Newbury states. After waiting for 10 minutes -- while his dog was "seriously bleeding out in the garage" --- he rushed Ying Yang to a vet on Fillmore Street where he received multiple staples in his chin. The vet bill was $680.

Six hours after the ordeal, Newbury is back home with his dog. He decides to take a spin around the block to see if he can learn more. "Unbelievably," he states, he sees "the same person who was walking the dog, now the owner" stepping outside of their apartment with the dog, which is wearing "the same exact harness, same exact leash, as if nothing had happened to them that day." Newbury just identified another exhausted cliche trait of vicious dog owners after an attack -- nonchalance.

Newbury jumps out of his truck and confronts them. Yet, he is met with another exhausted cliche response by vicious dog owners. Elijah's owner, Davis, who did not witness the attack, blames Newbury's dog. "It was your dog's fault, and your dog that attacked my dog," she said. The victim blaming occurs before Davis is aware that Newbury has footage of the attack. Now, after identifying multiple "exhausted cliche" traits of owners of vicious dogs, Newbury sees the larger picture.

"Then and there, I knew exactly who these people were and what was going on," Newbury states. "I just said, 'You have zero morals, zero anything.'"

After Newbury tells them, "Pit bulls, in my opinion, shouldn't be legal," he's hit with another exhausted cliche hurled by the owner of a vicious pit bull. She states, "That's a stigmatism. Pit bulls aren't bad." Newbury replies, "Well, if the pit bull, if that's a stigmatism, they say, then it's not bad dog, it's bad dog owners. Then you my friend are a horrible dog owner because your dog just mauled my dog." Then he bluntly asks, "So, which one is it? Are pit bulls bad or are you a bad dog owner? Unbelievable!"

Newbury next identifies another exhausted cliche exhibited by vicious dog owners. A few weeks later, he states, "another person is walking the dog -- again, not the owner, and it's not the same one who was walking the dog before." So, everyone walks this dog except for the actual owner, he said. Keen observation -- it's like isolating bites. If 3 dog walkers each have an incident and each walk different routes, it's more difficult for victims to identify the owner and to calculate cumulative bites.

If Newbury had not gotten into his truck and circled the neighborhood that day, it may have taken him weeks, if ever, to identify the dog's owner. (There can't be a legal hearing with an unidentified dog owner either.) It's exceptionally suspicious when multiple non-owners of a biting dog are seen walking the biting dog, but the owner is not. Recall what the dog walker told Newbury: "I'm not the owner of the dog. I didn't come back because I thought the owner of the dog should deal with it."

How convenient. It's the old adage, "Every dog has an identifiable owner -- until it bites someone." Then the owner becomes a game of musical chairs.

When confronted after the attack, Davis told Newbury she would be "more than willing to pay" the vet bill. By the time of the hearing, 4.5 months later, she had not. As Newbury states, "It just goes to show. No accountability. No responsibility. Tried to say it was my dog's fault. It's like, where does this end?" In a nutshell, it doesn't. Elijah will likely be seen in a future hearing after attacking another dog because one of the dog's "multiple walkers" failed to muzzle him. Again, it won't be the owner's fault.

Davis testifies next. She did not witness the attack and can only offer background. Elijah is about 7.5 years old, weighs 65 pounds and is neutered. The dog has been neutered, "since we adopted him," she said. She acquired the dog at the end of her freshman year in high school. Davis testifies that she and Jimenez did walk back to Newbury's home that day, rang his doorbell, but were unable to contact him. Davis did not leave a note. "My dog has never been in any type of fight, at all," Davis states.

Hearing Officer Janelle Caywood has an excellent response. "Generally, what this incident tells me. Often times people come in here and say it's an isolated incident, it's out of character for my dog. The reality is, all that says is that your dog is unpredictable. I'm very concerned. This was a prolonged attack." When Caywood asks what steps Davis put in place to prevent a future attack, her response is negligible. She alleges she would walk Elijah with "multiple people" and that she "ordered" a muzzle.

When Caywood asks, "When?" Davis replies, "The other day." So, for 4.5 months, dog-aggressive Elijah was being walked without a muzzle.

Jimenez, the dog walker, is last to testify. She claims that Ying Yang, who was tethered at the time, initiated the attack by running toward Elijah. "It was my visual understanding that [Ying Yang] was latched onto the top of Eli's face." And, "I had no idea how to separate that other dog clinging onto Eli's mouth." Caywood, however, disagrees with her assessment. "I've watched the video ... It's clear to me that Elijah was the initial aggressor and that any response of biting was done in self-defense."

Statement of Decision Findings

"Jimenez’s testimony differed from Newbury’s testimony regarding the July 5, 2024, incident. After reviewing the evidence and observing the demeanor of both people at the hearing, the undersigned determined that Newbury was the more credible witness because his account was corroborated by the video footage he presented as evidence which Jiminez had not observed at the time Jiminez submitted a written statement. In the written statement, Jimenez’s erroneously stated that Newbury’s dog, Ying Yang, was off-leash and the initial aggressor, neither of which were true. To that end, the undersigned makes the below factual finding in #1.

1. On July 5, 2024, Elizabeth Jimenez walked Ciara Davis’s leashed Pit Bull dog, Elijah, past Thomas Newbury’s residence on Anza Street. As Jimenez and Elijah walked past Newbury’s garage, Elijah lunged and dragged Jimenez toward the garage where Ying Yang, Newbury’s Australian Shepherd/Poodle mix dog was tied up. Elijah bit Ying Yang in the face in a prolonged attack leaving puncture wounds and requiring emergency medical treatment.

2. The dog, Elijah’s attack on Ying Yang, was unprovoked...
Based on the testimony at the hearing, the documents presented, and the above Findings, evidence presented is sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that Elijah qualifies as vicious and dangerous under subdivision 1, of Section 42 because the attack (bites) to Ying Yang on July 5, 2024, was unprovoked. Notably, the footage that Newbury presented (Ex. 5) shows that this was a prolonged attack that only ended after Newbury struck the dog, Elijah, numerous times to save his own dog." - Statement of Decision - Findings

Summary & Discussion

During closing comments, Newbury has a chance to speak again. He rejects Davis' testimony that the pair returned to his house that day. He also states, "If there was no video, I would have no idea who these people were, where they went, if I didn't run into them later that day. It would have literally been my word against theirs. And the fact that just that day, they went back out like nothing had happened." It wasn't in their thought process to "buy a muzzle today." They still don't even have one, he said.

Interestingly, the dog walker/roommate, Jimenez, is as bad or worse than the actual dog owner in terms of exhibiting the "exhausted cliches" of owners of vicious dogs, as well as by making erroneous assessments in her written statement and hearing testimony. Officer Caywood writes in the Statement of Decision that when Jimenez submitted her written statement, alleging that "Ying Yang was off leash and the initial aggressor, neither of which were true," she had not observed the video evidence.

Davis, who testified that "nothing like this has ever happened before," lacks credibility since she's apparently never the person walking her own dog. Her solution to prevent a future attack is to walk her dog "with multiple people." How would she organize "team walking" events, since she's already unable to organize time to walk the dog herself? Davis admitted that she only ordered the muzzle from Amazon "the other day," nearly 5 months after the attack. As Newbury would say, "Unbelievable!"

Thankfully, Newbury's wife and his one-in-a-half year old daughter were out of town that weekend. "My daughter rides her bike right there on that sidewalk," where the attack occurred. "That easily could have been my daughter," he said. The stresses of "what if" scenarios, compounded by the pair's nonchalance, denial of accountability and blame shifting, increased the trauma Newbury sustained. The repeated -- and unnecessary -- exhausted cliche responses by the two exacerbated his suffering.

Sudden, explosive pit bull violence is traumatic enough. The video clearly shows this. Newbury's words expressed during the hearing illustrate the even more long-lasting effects. "I was just completely mind blown," he states, when he saw the pair out with the dog hours after the attack. "How are you guys outside with this dog right now with the same exact restraints, the same exact leash, and the same exact harness going for a stroll, down the same exact street, like nothing happened?"

Exhausted Cliches Exhibited by Vicious Dog Owners

1. Owner of vicious pit bull denies the breed's genetic traits
2. Owner of vicious dog fails to have any capacity or tool to stop the attack
3. Owner of vicious dog refuses to give the victim contact information
4. Owner of vicious dog promises to "come back," never does
5. Owner of vicious dog acts like nothing happened -- total nonchalance
6. Owner of vicious dog takes no action to protect against a future attack
7. Owner of vicious dog blames the victim dog for starting the attack
8. Owner of vicious pit bull cries "stigmatism" after damaging attack
9. Everyone walks the vicious dog except for the actual owner
10. Owner of vicious dog claims he/she will pay the vet bill, never does

Epilogue "Discrimination" and "Wheelbarrow"

At about 37:13, Officer Caywood addresses the issue of "breed discrimination." Apparently, this was in some of the letters attesting to the glowing temperament of Elijah. "We are not here because the city discriminates against a breed. We are here to protect the public, and we have a video of your dog attacking another dog. That's why we are here." When dog owner's make this claim during hearings, Caywood states, "What that tells me is that there's an inability to take accountability as a deflection."

Thus, it makes Caywood wonder if that person can be trusted with a potentially dangerous animal, to do the right thing and wear a muzzle. "If they're always blaming someone else instead of taking accountability, then I have concerns," she said. Several moments later, Caywood asks Captain Fenson of San Francisco Animal Care and Control if she has any recommendations for how to get a pit bull to release during a dog-on-dog attack, because "oftentimes, they lock and hold, as you know."

One of the methods she recommends that she characterizes as "pretty safe," is the "wheelbarrow" -- we disagree. The technique involves picking up the hind legs of a biting (and holding) pit bull. Thus, the victim dog owner is dependent on the pit bull owner undertaking this or a willing bystander. Worse, it may not stop the biting pit bull, as seen in the gruesome Berkeley, California dog-on-dog attack video. A male construction worker bystander performs the wheelbarrow and gets no results.

We recommend viewers watch dog trainer Robert Cabral's video, "Dog Fight Mistakes Breakdown" to see why this technique can be ineffective (it is outdated) and has more risks than what an "average" dog owner may assume. Cabral breaks down the Berkeley video and offers a more effective solution for a dog owner who is willing to accept some risks (6:15 to 28:30). Professionals like Cabral and Fenson can often quickly stop one of these attacks. But that doesn't help an "average" dog owner.

Chapters & Commentary Points

00:00: Introduction
07:00: Dog-on-dog attack video is played
07:55: Complainant testifies
11:49: Alert - Person walking attacking dog claims "I'll come back."
13:27: Alert - Vicious dog owner acts "as if nothing had happened that day"
14:24: Alert - Owner of vicious dog blames the victim dog's owner
15:00: Alert - Complainant contests the alleged "pit bull stigmatism"
15:44: Alert - Complainant: "Everyone walks the dog except for the actual owner?"
16:23: Alert - Vicious dog owner claims she will "pay the vet bill" but never does
19:28: Alert - Complainant states his dog is "scarred from pit bulls now"
20:08: Owner of vicious dog testifies, who was not present during attack
27:01: Dog walker of vicious dog testifies (the roommate of the dog owner)
28:35: Dog walker claims the victim dog latched onto to the pit bull's face
30:33: Alert - Hearing officer disagrees with dog walker's assessment
31:52: Closing commentary begins
32:27: Alert - Complainant reiterates the owner acted like "nothing had happened"
36:17: Alert - Vicious dog owner, again, claims she would pay his vet bill but did not!
37:14: Alert - Hearing officer addresses "issue of breed discrimination" in hearings
39:58: Alert - SFACC officer claims "wheelbarrow" method is "pretty safe"
43:18: Epilogue - DogsBite.org shows the ineffectiveness of the "wheelbarrow" technique

Newbury seen racing across his garage to save his dog Ying Yang from the jaws of a pit bull.

Related articles:
08/30/24: The Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing of Max, a High Prey Drive Husky in San Francisco
06/13/24: San Francisco Man Scales Tall Fence to Escape Violent Pit Bulls Captured on Video
10/29/23: Ring Camera Video of Pit Bull Attacking Pomeranian in San Francisco Used in Hearing