2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Albany Man Killed by Pit Bulls Outside Residence; Police Officer Fires on Vicious Dogs

James Provost, 59-years old, was killed by pit bulls behind a residence in Albany, New York.


Man Killed by Dogs
Albany, NY - A man is dead after being attacked by multiple dogs -- the majority being pit bulls, police said. The fatal attack occurred Wednesday in the 500 block of Central Avenue at about 5:55 pm. Officers responded to reports of a man being attacked by several dogs. "Upon arrival, they observed the dogs fatally attacking the man, and in an attempt to stop the attack, one of the responding officers discharged his duty weapon, striking at least one dog," the department said in a press release.

Albany Police are currently investigating a dog attack that occurred this evening on the 500 block of Central Avenue.

On Wednesday, October 9, 2024 at around 5:55 p.m., officers responded to the 500 block of Central Avenue for reports of a male being attacked by several dogs. Upon arrival, they observed the dogs fatally attacking the man, and in an attempt to stop the attack, one of the responding officers discharged his duty weapon, striking at least one dog.

The male was pronounced deceased at the scene.

The name of the victim will not be released until proper notifications have been made.

All of the dogs have been accounted for, and the Albany Police Department are currently in the process of placing them in an appropriate homing facility.

At this time the investigation remains active and ongoing. More information will be released as it becomes available. - Albany Police Department

The man was pronounced dead at the scene. His name will not be released until his next of kin have been notified. All of the dogs have been accounted for; the department is "currently in the process of placing them in an appropriate homing facility." (That's an interesting choice of words, since an adoption center is called a "rehoming facility." We hope these dogs are not going to be rehomed.) A video being shared on social media shows the man being attacked by two dogs and collapsing.

According to an Albany Facebook page, the attack occurred in the backyard of a residence that is close to the car wash between Central Avenue and Bradford Street. "Currently on scene are multiple detectives, animal control officers, and officers ... Currently on scene there is what appears to be a person that did not survive." One commenter claimed to have a "buddy at Albany PD," who said the victim was a homeless man that tried to enter someone's backyard and got attacked by pit bulls.

WRGB captured the video on social media and blurred the images. The video was taken by a witness who heard the man crying for help. WRGB also took a still image from the video and blacked out the victim. You can see his foot on the left side, and you can see two muscular pit bulls in the process of mauling the man to death. In the last moments of his life, all he knew is that he was being ripped apart by the powerful jaws of pit bulls. It's literally a medieval death sentence. It's beyond horrifying.

Press Conference

On Thursday, the victim was identified as 59-year old James Provost of Schenectady. New details were released too. Officers responding to the scene found eight or nine dogs attacking Provost. An officer fired on an adult male dog, killing it, and dispersing the others. After rounding up the canines, police said there were 24 dogs, including 15 puppies. The dogs are owned by a "resident of Cohoes," a city 10 miles north, but were being kept by a caretaker in the backyard of 592 Central Avenue.

Albany Police Chief Eric Hawkins confirmed during a news conference that police searched the property back in May after receiving a complaint about drug activity. At that time, five to seven dogs were confiscated, but not due to vicious behavior. They were later released. There are multiple units at the 592 property and multiple residents. The dogs were not being raised in a "family atmosphere," Hawkins said. “There are some very, very questionable activities going on at that place,” he said.

Provost was in the backyard of 594 Central Ave. The dogs, which were being kept at 592 Central Ave., got through the fence and attacked him.

The Albany County District Attorney’s Office is considering if criminal charges are warranted. “It was a horrific attack," Hawkins said. "Obviously, when you’re keeping that many animals in a location in violation of city ordinance, and some of those animals kill a person, there’s certainly a possibility for it." Investigators still do not know why Provost was at the 594 location or if he knew any of the residents. “We’re going to do everything we can to bring justice to this person who was viciously attacked."

Hawkins also explained the "homing facility" term. Police confiscated the dogs and determined where they will be held while police sort out the criminal aspects of the case. What ultimately happens to the dogs, will be determined by the courts. The Albany Police Department is not determining the outcome of these dogs. Police continue to have many unanswered questions. Multiple agencies are investigating, including the health department to determine if 592 Central Avenue is habitable.

Albany man killed by pit bulls

This mashup shows the front facing car wash and homes, and the location of the attack.

Albany man killed by pit bulls

Two views of the backyard (592) where the pit bulls were kept. The dogs got through the fence line and attacked Provost in the adjacent backyard (594) of a home painted green.

Albany man killed by pit bulls

A still frame from a video showing an Albany man being killed by two pit bulls.

map iconView the DogsBite.org Google State Map: New York Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Related articles:
09/05/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Owner Charged After His 'Mastiff Breeds' Kill Homeless Man
08/14/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Husky Blamed for Deadly Dog Bite to Homeless Man in Fresno
12/29/23: 2023 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bulls Kill Homeless Man at "Dirt World," a Transient Camp

2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Newborn Dies After Being Bitten by Family Dog in Torrance, California

newborn dies dog bite torrance
Chevy Womack, 1-month old, died after being bitten by a family dog in Torrance.

Newborn Dies
Torrance, CA - A newborn baby died after being bitten by a family dog Tuesday afternoon. Paramedics were dispatched to a residence in the 2700 block of Martha Avenue around 12:35 pm for a report of an animal bite. "The Torrance Fire Department arrived and discovered that a dog had bit a one-month-old child," the Torrance Police Department said. The Torrance Fire Department transported the child to a local hospital. When Torrance police arrived at the hospital, they were informed the baby girl died.

Upon learning of the child's death, "Detectives responded to the scene and the hospital to conduct a follow-up investigation," Lt. Freddy Ahmad said in a news release. The family owned the dog, and it lived at the residence. The attack occurred inside the home. The infant has been identified as Chevy Womack. Torrance Animal Control took possession of the dog. As of Wednesday, the cause of death is still undetermined pending the Los Angeles County coroner’s investigation, states the release.

NBC Los Angels reports that multiple dogs lived in the home. Authorities seized all of the dogs. NBC spoke to Faye Tohidi, who is a friend of person who lives at the home. Tohidi said she was told, "The dog got ahold of the baby." The dog belonged to the mother, Ahmad said. Detectives are still conducting interviews. Children and Family Services is also investigating, Ahmad said. Torrance Animal Control said the dog involved is a "mixed-breed," which often indicates a "mixed bull breed."

Tohidi, who calls herself a "dog person," told KABC-TV there were three dogs in the home, including a mastiff, pit bull-mix and a mixed-breed dog.

Of the multiple news reports of the infant's death, Tohidi's account is the most impacting. Tohidi had hoped to visit the family today. Then she learned what happened. "I can’t even imagine how the mother feels right now. She must be devastated," she said. Then she offered a warning. "Be aware," she said. "When you have a big dog, and you have an infant in the house, you have to make sure they are completely separate or give your dog away." Tohidi added, "Your newborn needs your attention."

Confirmation of Dog Involved

We received confirmation of the culprit dog from a person who knows the mother. It is the only dog seen on the mother's Facebook page. A male pit bull-mix, apparently "Rambo," that bears striking similarity to the black and white male pit bull-mastiff mixes that killed Joseph Keeton in 2023. Last Halloween, when the mother could not find Rambo, she warned, "Rambo can get aggressive if you have gloves, a helmet, or a mask on. I don't want him running around and mistakenly hurt anyone."


newborn dies dog bite torrance, suspected dog involved

The only dog on the mother's Facebook page is this male black and white pit bull-mastiff mix. The dog is always seen indoors: lying on furniture, lying on the carpet, or inside a car.

newborn dies dog bite torrance, view of the backyard

Top image: The mother's Halloween post about Rambo. Bottom image: KABC's chopper got a shot of the backyard. The soft-sided playpen appears to be keeping puppies inside(?)

Related articles:
05/31/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Pet Husky Attacked, Killed Newborn Sleeping in Crib
05/14/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: 4-Day Old Dead After 'Apparent Dog Bite' from Husky
02/29/24: 2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Newborn Dies After Bite, 'Head Injury' from Pet Husky


Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.

2024 Dog Bite Fatality: Babysitter's XL Pit Bulls Kill Baby, Attack Teenager Inside Home in Bexar County, Texas

Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar press conference after Heather Rodriguez is perp walked.


Babysitter Arrested
Bexar County, TX - On Monday, multiple pit bulls of the XL variety attacked a baby boy and a 13-year old, who had been left to look after him. The baby did not survive. Prior to the baby dying, police arrested Heather Rodriguez, 36, in connection to the attack and charged her with serious bodily injury by omission, which carries 5 to 99 year penalty. Rodriguez was supposed to be babysitting. Instead, she left the baby with her 13-year old daughter. Rodriguez was not home when the dogs attacked.

Investigators said the two children were sequestered in a room when the dogs forced their way inside through a door the dogs had previously damaged. Sheriff Javier Salazar said there was a "tug-of-war" between the teen and one of the dogs, until she was able to flee into a bathroom with the baby. Soon after, the dogs forced themselves inside. The teen had to leave the baby with the dogs to get her cell phone to call for help. Then she came back and "barricaded the door using her body," he said.

"Do not go through the front door," states the dispatcher for Bexar County Fire and EMS. "They are advising to go through a window upstairs. The dogs are not letting the complainant out of the room, or anyone into the residence."1

Salazar also said the dogs chased the teen from room to room. She even held the baby above her head. "She made every effort possible, even lifting that baby up over her head...the dog actually climbed up onto something and was able to get the baby out of her hand and tear the baby out of her hand, this little girl was put in a situation where she went from that bedroom, to a bathroom, to another bedroom and was chased every step of the way by these dogs who were continuing to bite her."

The attack occurred around 10:00 am in the 9700 block of Spruce Ridge Drive near Converse. The baby was transported to San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) with severe head and throat injuries, where he later died. On Tuesday, the Bexar County Medical Examiner identified the boy as Jiryiah Johnson. He died on Monday shortly before 9:30 pm. Sheriff Salazar said the attack lasted about two minutes. Salazar said Rodriguez had previously been cited for the dogs' running at large.

Four XL bullies were seized from the home, but not without resistance. Rodriguez "didn't want to give us the dogs," Salazar said. She even tried to barter. "Okay we're just going to give you this one but not these others," Salazar mimicked. The deputies stepped in and took the dogs by force. At least three of the dogs were present and/or participated in the attack. Rodriguez has been uncooperative with investigators. "She refused to give a statement. She didn't have anything to say to us," Salazar said.


Bexar County Sheriff's Office released crime scene aftermath images of the interior of the home.


Thank you so much for joining us. We wanted to show you this suspect, but also to clarify some information that was given to us preliminarily...Heather Rodriguez, which is the 36-year-old female that you just met, she is not related biologically to the baby. She is in fact, in my understanding a caregiver. This morning, she took custody of the child for purposes of babysitting. At a certain point, we're still trying to determine at what point that was, Miss Rodriguez left the house and left the baby in custody of her, Heather's, 13-year-old daughter. That 13-year-old and the baby were in a bedroom. My understanding is that there was an effort to keep the baby sequestered from the dogs because these dogs were known to cause damage. At a certain point, the little girl, the 13-year-old, was in the bedroom with the one-year-old little boy when the dogs forced their way into the room. My understanding is that the door leading into that room was already damaged by the dogs at some point before that rendered it not completely secure. The dogs were able to force their way into the bedroom, and at that point began biting the baby.

The 13-year-old was able to maintain control of the baby but at this point, and what's being described to me is it was almost a tug-of-war for the baby between at least one of the dogs and the little girl. At a certain point, additional dogs came into the room as well. Then they joined in the attack. The little girl then spent several minutes trying to fight them off. She was able to get the baby and herself into a bedroom -- or I'm sorry a bathroom attached to that bedroom. The dogs also went into that bathroom. They forced their way into the bathroom. They then began to resume their attack on not just the baby but also on the 13-year-old. She was also bitten in the process.

At a certain point she had to break away and physically left the baby behind in the bathroom being attacked while she went to go get her cell phone to call for help. She was able to grab her cell phone, come back and resume fighting with the dogs over the baby. At a certain point she was able to call for help. She then took the baby and went into another bedroom, at which point she was able to put the baby on the floor and barricade the door using her body to prevent the dogs from coming into that bedroom. When deputies arrived, that's when they were able to come in, take custody of the scene, take control of the scene. They found the baby there. Began first aid. Called for EMS, who was there pretty quickly. EMS was able to transport the baby to the hospital. From what we understand about the baby right now, definitely critical condition. My understanding is that they were not able to get the baby stabilized enough to move to University [Hospital], as we were hoping for, but rather they maintained care of the baby there at SAMMC.

The injuries are pretty substantial. I've actually seen some pictures of the baby gleaned from our body camera video of the deputies, and it's heartbreaking. To see anybody in that condition -- even more so a one-year-old baby -- pretty severe head injuries. My understanding is that the baby's throat and airway are actually damaged to the point where the baby's not able to breathe through normal means. Obviously, they've had to do some surgical intervention to allow that to happen. My understanding is that the actual parents of the baby are now at the hospital.

My understanding is that...this dog had some sort of history prior to this happening. In April, the sheriff's office was dispatched for loose dogs, and the dogs were keeping the caller inside his car. In other words, they were not letting him get out of his car. They were barking and growling at him. He was afraid for his safety, did not get out of the car, and called for us. We were able to show up and get the dogs away and allow that caller to get out of the car. The dogs were secured, and at that point Miss Rodriguez was actually cited for having dogs running free of restraint. In other words, unleashed dogs. She was allowed to maintain custody the dogs at that point.

My understanding is that the parents knew that Miss Rodriguez had dogs, but they did not know that the dogs were problematic. I'm led to believe they would not have let her care for their baby...had they known these dogs were unsafe.

At any rate, the parents are with the baby at this point, and Miss Rodriguez, it is our intent, as she's being transported over to south tower, our intent is to book her for injury to a child with serious bodily injury by omission. It's a first-degree felony. She may face additional charges for the injuries sustained by her own daughter, the 13-year-old. I've got to be honest. The 13-year-old in this instance is absolutely, I'm considering her a hero. I think that that her actions led to that baby not being mauled even more seriously or even killed as a result of this savage dog attack. So this little girl, unfortunately she sustained injuries herself. I believe she's going to have some lasting psychological effects as a result of it, but I do I consider her a hero. CPS is actually involved in this case as well not just for the welfare of the baby himself but additionally...the 13-year-old.

It's a certainly a heartbreaking situation for all. Again, Heather Rodriguez will be booked, and our intent is to book her for injury to a child, serious bodily injury. That's pending if the DA's office will accept that charge...

Responses to media questions:

Q: Are the baby's injuries life-threatening?

A: The baby boy is in critical, life-threatening injuries, definitely life-threatening injuries.

Q: Do we know the extent of the 13-year-old injuries?

A: My understanding is that she was...it's horrible to say. She was covered in blood, but I think the majority of that blood belonged to the baby. She was injured. I don't believe she was injured so much to the point where she had to be hospitalized...She was left there at the house. CPS, once they get over there, may determine that she needs to be hospitalized...or at least removed from the home...Again, I consider her a hero in this situation. She got left in a pretty bad situation for any 13-year-old to be left in charge of a baby like that, but in a house full of vicious dogs. What did this lady, the suspect, think was going to happen?

Q: You called the 13-year-old a hero. How long do you think she went back and forth with this dog before she was able to call 911?

A: It was about two minutes. All said and done, this attack was about two minutes. The dogs, I haven't seen the dogs, but they're described to me as XL pits of bulldogs. They're very thick very heavy muscular dogs. So, for a 13-year-old little girl, I haven't seen how big she, is but for her to be able to fight...Two minutes is a long time to fight when you're outnumbered. We're talking at least two, possibly three dogs that she was fighting with, probably each weighing more than she did...My understanding is it's four dogs...This is not the first time being babysat...

Q: Do we know if all four dogs took part in the attack?

A: At this point, no. I believe at least two. But it's possible all four of them may have...We'll see what ends up happening. Obviously for any dog that took part in it needs to be put down. I don't think there's any scenario in which we could see giving any of these dogs back...That's outside our hands it's up to animal control to determine which dogs were involved...

Q: Question [regarding the babysitter, dog owner]
Initially we thought she was related to the baby. We come to find out that she's not. What I can tell you is that at that scene they really gave our deputies a hard time as far as they...didn't want to give us the dogs.
Then it was, "Okay we're just going to give you this one but not these others." The deputies stepped in and said no, "we're going to take all the dogs." We took them all. If we're able to find out that one of the dogs or several of the dogs were not responsible for it then fine perhaps those can go back. You know she seemed to be more concerned with what was going on with those dogs than with the fact that that her inaction, her omissions, almost caused the death of a baby and still might, God forbid...At this point, I believe we're trying to find out if she went to work or went to run an errand, but certainly nothing could be so important that you would endanger the life of a baby like that.

Q: We also don't know how long she was gone from the house?

A: We don't.

Q: Seems like she is not cooperating?

A: Oh, she came down with us, and she refused to give a statement. She didn't have anything to say to us...

Q: Can you just talk about the state of Bexar County in San Antonio with it seems dog attacks happen unfortunately once a week?

A: Sure. It's something that we are seeing way too often. I think the whole system -- city, county, statewide -- I think all of us could stand to tighten things down a bit. We know that it's a continuing issue with us. At present, we're looking at our own internal policies, and [asking] what can we do? Unfortunately, in this situation, Animal Control doesn't answer to me or my agency. We do what we can to work with them. So we'll see what we can do to tighten up our part of the process. All the indicators are that they'll work with us, but we just need to see how we can work better together to prevent these things from happening...it is something that we're seeing with much more frequency -- dog attacks on the elderly, dog attacks on babies. It's not something that we can continue to just let the status quo..


The Dogs, Owners & Breeders

Last night, we researched the owners and breeders of these dogs. Heather Rodriguez and Jason Reddick are both associated to the address where the attack occurred. Reddick promotes "Snowstorm Bullies." Both of them have photos of "Snowstorm's Scooby Doo," the celebrated male stud dog, on Facebook as recently as January for Reddick. Two other dogs we believe were seized at the scene is a tri-female (pink collar) and the mother of both, "Queen Monae", who bore that litter in late 2021.

That said, given the nature of "tight" XL bully breedings, all of the dogs seized could be offspring of Scooby Doo or Queen Monae that share similar markings. However, given Rodriguez's behavior of refusing to give up the dogs and "bartering" with deputies, so that she could at least keep one or two of them, indicates to us she wanted to hold onto the moneymaker(s) for future breedings. Salazar was stunned by her behavior. Unfortunately, we are not. Currently, Rodriguez is still sitting in a jail cell.

"House Lions" Aren't Safe

This teenager is lucky to be alive. In 2022, a family with two "house lions," as the father called their XL bullies, killed both of their children -- Hollace and Lilly Bennard -- and critically injured their mother. When Salazar spoke about the child's mother, he said, "The parents knew that Miss Rodriguez had dogs, but they did not know that the dogs were problematic. I'm led to believe they would not have let her care for their baby...had they known these dogs were unsafe." House lions, generally, are unsafe.

Salazar also mentioned the "DA's office." Yes, it's the same DA's office -- Bexar County District Attorney's Office -- that recently prosecuted Christian Moreno and Abilene Schnieder in connection to the death of Ramon Najera. He was brutally killed by two pit bulls in February 2023. Our nonprofit just ran a 4-part series about the trial. Finally, Salazar said, "Animal Control doesn't answer to me or my agency." Our question to Salazar is why not? Perhaps BCSO should have a Vicious Dog Unit?

Various Clarifications

Salazar clarified that Rodriguez and her 13-year old daughter are not related to the victim, Jiryiah Johnson. Rodriguez lives in the home where the attack occurred. This is not the first time the victim was being babysat at the home (13:50). Rodriguez may face additional charges for the injuries her own daughter sustained. According to social media posts, Rodriguez and Reddick share children together and share the dogs, but only Reddick bills himself as a seller of XL bullies for Snowstorm Bullies.

According to online records from the Bexar County court system, Rodriguez was charged with one count of felony injury to child/elderly/disabled reckless; one count of abandoned/endanger child (imminent danger, bodily injury), a second-degree felony; and injury to child/elderly/disabled with intent for serious bodily injury, a first-degree felony. A defense attorney has been appointed to her. A special condition bond has been created: no possession of firearms, no alcohol, no contact order.


babysitters xl pit bulls - Scooby Doo male

Snowstorm's Scooby Doo is featured on Rodriguez's and Reddick's Facebook pages.

babysitters xl pit bulls - Queen Monae female

The tri-colored female, always seen wearing a pink collar, is a sibling of Scooby Doo.

babysitters xl pit bulls - Monae female

The mother of both, "Queen Monae," was acquired in 2020, had a litter in late 2021, which bore Scooby Doo and the tri-female, after being matched with Snowstorm's Oliver Winston.

1History repeats itself: The last time we read about paramedics having to go through an "upstairs window" to save a child from a vicious dog attack was 2014. That attack involved XL pit bull, "Niko," who was sired by the infamous, "UKC's Most Wanted Kimbo." Kimbo was well known to "spit HA in his offspring." (Human Aggression) The mother "barricaded" herself and her 4-year old daughter, Mia DeRouen, in an upstairs bedroom as the 130-pound pit bull attacked the door. She passed Mia to paramedics through a window. When the dog bolted out the front door, police shot 12-13 bullets into it. The attacking dog was categorized as a "monster" by Houma Police Chief Todd Duplantis. The child died. The mother, Megan Touchet, refused to talk to police afterward. Kimbo is one of the "Godfather's of the XXL Movement" that became a foundation stock for the XL breeding community. The Kimbo bloodline is so notorious that the United Kingdom's XL Bully ban was partly based on it. The Telegraph reported on September 14, 2023, "Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from 'Killer Kimbo.'" The UK government announced the ban on September 15, 2023.
map iconView the DogsBite.org Google State Map: Texas Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Related articles:
09/20/24: Prosecution Closing Arguments In Fatal Dog Attack Trial; Judge Issues Sentences
09/20/24: 2023 Dog Bite Fatality: Horrific Pit Bull Mauling in San Antonio Kills One, Hospitalizes...
10/02/23: 2023 Dog Bite Fatality: Man, 47, Mauled by Pit Bull Dies While Hospitalized in San Antonio


Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.

San Antonio Animal Control Testimony During Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial

San Antonio animal control testimony
Two animal control officers gave testimony during the punishment phase.

Lawsuit Against City
San Antonio, TX - On February 24, 2023, Ramon Najera, 81, was brutally killed by two pit bulls. The dogs’ owners, Christian Moreno and Abilene Schnieder, were later sentenced to 18 and 15 years respectively. The three-day punishment phase of this trial was captured on video. Due to this rarity, we examined the testimony of Najera's wife, a responding police officer, prosecution's closing arguments, and the sentencing. Our last in this series examines the testimony of two animal control officers.

You will see evidence of the crime scene aftermath in the videos we discuss. You will see images of the exterior and interior of the defendants' home taken by ACS Lieutenant Bethany Snowden. You will learn from Snowden details about the three previous bites, the dogs involved in each, and the procedures San Antonio Animal Care Services (ACS) follows after a dog bite. You will see defense poke holes in these procedures, which may shed light on strategies being used in the civil lawsuit.

Civil Lawsuit Excerpt

"Shockingly, this wasn't the only incident involving the dogs. Prior to the February 24, 2023, attack, the dogs were involved in at least three other attacks on people, with two of the three resulting in bite wounds. On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans. The City should have taken action in response to this complaint about the dangerous dogs and stopped any additional events from happening right then and there. But the City did nothing." - Najera et al v. City of San Antonio et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas


Part I: Crime Scene Aftermath


A San Antonio ACS officer who responded to the scene testifies (11 minutes). The officer shows photographs of the crime scene aftermath. The video starts when he begins [2:04:20]


At [2:04:20], a male ACS officer who responded to the scene on Depla Street on February 24, 2023 identifies the photographs he took of the attack site. An axe used by responding firefighters to fight off the pit bulls is seen lying on a leaf covered lawn soaked in pools of blood. Other images include the defendants' front gate ajar, blood on the sidewalk, a tear in the gate's fencing, the two blood-covered dogs involved, "King" and "Snow" secured together in a kennel, and the old scar wounds on King.

At [2:10:14], a third pit bull, "Legend," is shown being led away from the scene by Moreno with multiple first responder vehicles in the background. Legend also has old scar wounds. A reference of Legend being involved in the fatal attack is "hearsay" and not entered into the court record. Legend was not seen in the video of the fatal attack filmed by a witness, only King and Snow were. Defense tries to contest the ACS officer's ability to identify the scar wounds, a task he does "daily" in the field.

The officer's testimony ends at 2:15:15, which is several hours before Lt. Bethany Snowden testifies, who is our primary interest in this post. What has been established thus far is that King and Snow were involved in the fatal attack. This is important because not all three bites leading up to the fatal attack involved King and Snow. The defendants also owned Legend and Queen; the ladder dog was involved in an earlier bite. No one dog was involved in all three previous bites before the fatal attack.

"There were a multitude of bites associated with this address and multiple dogs associated in different events," ACS Director Shannon Sims said.1

This fact comes into play about ACS policy when Snowden testifies. Generally, if one dog had been involved in three previous bites, that would have triggered bite investigators to seek out a Dangerous Dog affidavit from victims and witnesses. Such an investigation and the declaration of even one of the defendants' pit bulls deemed "dangerous" might have prevented the fatal attack. As it stands, owners of "multiple" aggressive dogs that bite on separate occasions can more easily flout the law.

This is an ancient dog bite problem that lawmakers refuse to address. When a dog owner has multiple bites "collectively" attributed to him or her over a designated time period from one or more dogs, especially if the bites occurred while the dog was at large, the owners and their dogs should be treated with more scrutiny. Instead, owners of multiple biting dogs -- like the defendants -- that bite on separate occasions are afforded more "uncounted" bites prior to a "dangerous" designation.2


Part II: Lt. Bethany Snowden


ACS Lieutenant Bethany Snowden testifies about the previous bites and shows disturbing photographs of the defendants' home (30 minutes). The video starts when she begins [5:25:38]


Now we address the testimony of Snowden, who is identified in the civil lawsuit. During the hearing, Snowden testified that ACS was understaffed. There were "4 bite investigators" and 40 field officers for the "whole city of San Antonio" from 2020 to 2023. If Bexar County is included, that's a population of just over 2 million. Snowden testified that there are "260 calls per day," but this relates to all animal calls, not just dogs. At 5:28:45, Snowden goes through the process of handling a bite call.

Once a bite is proven to have occurred, under state law, the dog must be placed into a 10-day quarantine. "On the 11th day we release the animal" to its owner, Snowden said. If the owner does not reclaim, the dog becomes the property of San Antonio. When the prosecutor asked if the owner can voluntarily surrender his dog at that time, and not retrieve it, she replied, "Yes." And that can also be done "at any time," she added. Thus, establishing the defendants could have chosen that route.

Three Previous Bites

  • The first bite incident occurred on September 11, 2021. David Avilia, 29-years old, was the victim, and the bite was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale. The biting dog was "Queen," but Snow was also present. ACS impounded Queen for the bite quarantine. Defendant Moreno reclaimed Queen 11 days later, after paying $266 in fees.
  • The second bite incident occurred 17 days later, on September 28, 2021. Fernando Esparza, 59-years old, was the victim, and the bite was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale. The biting dog was Snow. ACS impounded Snow for the bite quarantine. Defendant Moreno reclaimed Snow 11 days later, after paying $306 in fees.
  • The third bite incident occurred on January 12, 2023, one month before Ramon Najera was killed. Reynaldo Vega was the victim. The bite was determined to be "moderate" on the ACS bite scale. ACS impounded the dogs involved, King and Snow, for the bite quarantine. Schnieder reclaimed both dogs 11 days later, after paying $427 in fees.
  • On February 24, 2023, King and Snow brutally killed 81-year old Ramon Najera, critically injured his wife, Janie Najera, and bit and injured two other people at the scene. Making this the "second" unsecured/off-property bite for King and the "third" unsecured/off-property bite for Snow between September 2021 and February 2023.

Exterior, Interior Photos

Snowden was then asked about the images she took of the exterior and interior of the defendants' home. Snowden did not go to the scene until that evening when it was dark. Defense objected to the interior photos of the home being entered into evidence. Prosecution argued that how the couple kept the inside of their home "could be a contributing factor to the behavior of the dogs, the care of the dogs." The judge overruled the objections. All of the photographs were allowed into evidence.

At 5:38:26, the prosecutor shows the photographs to the court, beginning with images of the dilapidated, jerry-rigged backyard fence. A dog harness and a cable tether line, not attached to anything, lay on the ground. Prosecution now establishes that while all of the pictures were taken (both outside and inside) there was no working electricity on the property. Snowden took the photographs while using a flashlight. There had been no working electricity on the property for two months.

At 5:40:13, the prosecutor shows a series of interior home photographs. Debris, urine, and feces litter the flooring. The hallway is particularly disturbing, as it is saturated in debris (clothing, junk, trash) at least a foot high, along with feces. Recall the defendants had four children living in the home up until the fatal mauling. Snowden observed four puppies inside the home during her examination. Snowden testified the puppies were secured inside the home. Prosecution then passed the witness to defense.

Defense Questions Snowden

At 5:44:45, defense questions Snowden, shedding light on strategies that may be used in the civil lawsuit filed against the city. The defense concentrates on the "third bite" that occurred a month before the fatal mauling, arguing, generally, that the injury should have been designated "severe" instead of "moderate," which would have triggered ACS bite investigators to seek out a Dangerous Dog affidavit from victims and witnesses, leading to the dogs' euthanasia prior to the fatal attack.

Defense then probes Snowden about the Dangerous Dog affidavit system. (1) Snowden defaults to the position that the "affidavit has to be prepared by a witness or a victim," (2) Snowden defaults to the position that dogs impounded for a bite quarantine "have to be returned [to their owners] because dogs are property," and (3) Snowden defaults to the position that "we cannot begin an investigation until an affidavit is received." Herein lies the rub, as if ACS has no authority to act on their own.

At 5:48:15, the "bite per dog" charade chimes in that no rational person could comprehend. "The determination has been made that these dogs have been biting people for the span of three years?" defense asks. "Three different incidents, at least during that time?" defense asks. "For three different dogs," Snowden counters. The dogs were quarantined each time. "So, my question is," asks defense, "at what point does ACS become concerned about beginning the process of obtaining an affidavit?"

Snowden repeats her default positions. Recall that the judge, prior to issuing her sentencing, said, "I find the testimony I heard from the city of San Antonio very difficult to believe," referring to testimony about a "missing affidavit." Defense then summed up Snowden by saying, "So, I take from your answer that you are passive in this process, that nothing is done in your office. If somebody brings the affidavit, fine. If they don't, you just hold onto them for 10 days and try to return the dogs?"

When ACS is "Active"

Snowden then explains, "We are active when every serious bite that comes through the door." She testified that none of the three previous bites were "serious." It was irrelevant to ACS that the dogs involved belonged to the same owners and each time attacked while being at large. Further, Snowden said that a bite investigator would have been contacted if one of the dogs had been involved in a third bite. At that time, Snow had been involved in only two bites, thus ACS never pursued an affidavit.

At 5:50:40, defense asks, "So, you needed to see another two bites with each one of these dogs before the need to get the affidavit kicked in?" Snowden does not answer this directly (to do so would show how absurd the policy is). In a ruffled reply, she states: "If we believe the animals are a public safety issue, we will reach out to witnesses and victims to try to fill out [an affidavit]." The information that "every victim receives, also notifies them of a dangerous dog affidavit," Snowden testified.

When defense asked Snowden, "So these dogs were not dangerous to the public at this point, after these three bites? They were not a threat to public safety?" She replies, "They were not a threat to public safety. They are property." (Yet, the "property" of dogs is of an "imperfect nature," according to U.S. law, which is why they are subject to police power.) Defense next asks about the affidavit itself. It's 4 pages in length and takes roughly 30 minutes to an hour to fill out, Snowden testified.

City Attorney Andy Segovia, whose role is to provide "the interpretation and guidance" of ACS policies, is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.3

Defense then asks for the definition of a "severe" bite, which would have triggered ACS to seek out an investigation. "Severe bites are deep lacerations, deep puncture wounds, multiple injuries, that somebody sustained," Snowden testified. If a severe bite is a "first bite" that would activate ACS to seek an investigation, she said. Schnieder's attorney then questioned Snowden on whether there was any proof in ACS records that previous victims had been given the Dangerous Dog affidavit notices.

At [5:54:47], Schnieder's attorney expands upon this. Regarding how David Avilia, the first victim, received the notice, "I have documentation in the file that he received it, but in regards to what form I can't tell you," Snowden said. Additional notices were sent by email from the shelter software, Chameleon. Defense could not understand this given that Avilia and other victims and witnesses of the previous bites had reached out to ACS multiple times but were still unaware of the affidavit option.

Snowden in the Civil Lawsuit

Now we return to the civil lawsuit, which alleges that a year before the three bites scrutinized during the criminal trial, there were affidavits. "On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans," states the Complaint. It's unclear which of the multiple dogs owned by the defendants caused the affidavit complaints.

"On February 24, 2023, Ms. Najera, and her husband, Ramon Najera, Jr., were violently attacked by dangerous dogs previously identified by city authorities as a significant threat to public safety...

Shockingly, this wasn't the only incident involving the dogs. Prior to the February 24, 2023, attack, the dogs were involved in at least three other attacks on people, with two of the three resulting in bite wounds. On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans. The City should have taken action in response to this complaint about the dangerous dogs...

"There is also no doubt that the dogs in question were dangerous. In addition to the clear evidence of dangerousness demonstrated above, as part of a criminal proceeding against the dogs’ owners, Animal Control Officer Bethany Snowden testified that the dogs were dangerous and that they had bitten someone in September 2021 and again in January 2023. Snowden explained in her sworn testimony that a dog is defined as “dangerous” if, while free of restrain, a person feels the dog could cause injury to them. She further conceded that that there were “flaws within the system of ACS”— it is these flaws that resulted in Plaintiffs’ injuries...

The City wrongfully denied the existence of prior complaints of the dogs’ vicious history and failed to take appropriate action, and wrongfully undertook inappropriate action, in violation of the Najera’s constitutional rights. The City also failed to follow existing policy, and created its own unconstitutional policy, in order to avoid expending resources to handle dangerous dogs."


Summary & Discussion


What you have seen in these videos is rarely seen in the public. Many courtrooms do not allow cameras either. The testimony and photographs are sobering. It offers a different perspective than "reading a news article." Leading up to the fatal attack, there had been many complaints about the defendants. In addition to 13 complaints that ACS traced to their home from 2020 to February 2023, police traced over 100 calls for disturbances to their residence from March 2021 to February 2023.

Prior to sentencing the defendants, the judge reminded the courtroom, "The city of San Antonio is not on trial here. They will have their day in court, and their lawsuit to contend with." The testimony provided by Snowden during the punishment phase provides insight into the themes that flow through the civil lawsuit filed against the city. The Complaint also alleges that the city did receive affidavits from concerned citizens about the defendants' dogs in 2020 but failed to take appropriate actions.

The "bite per dog" defense is an unknown factor. Which dogs did those affidavits refer to, Queen, Legend, King or Snow? The couple moved into the Depla Street home in 2020 and bred the dogs, so there could have been others. Further, does the "bite per dog" matter, given that state law does not require a "bite" for a victim or witness to file an affidavit. The dog can display "unprovoked acts" that "cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person."

(2) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:

(A) makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or

(B) commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person. - Texas statue, Sec. 822.041

The bite injury of the first victim, 29-year old David Avilia, was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale, but he was shaken to his core. It takes him nearly two minutes to gain his composure to recount the attack to the court. His 5-year old daughter was playing in his front yard at the time. Avilia describes the pit bulls doing a "pinching maneuver." One dog positioned to the left and right coroners of him (pinching him in), poised to attack. This aggressive act meets the definition of section B.

Now that the criminal trial is over, the civil lawsuit attorneys will peel back the layers of what the city failed to do. From alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses to Failure to Train and Supervise; Failure to Protect; Wrongful Death and Survival Claim; and how the State Created Danger, "including the failure to act appropriately after receiving affidavits, the failure to obtain affidavits, and the failure to properly classify the dogs as dangerous."


testimony janie najera testimony fatal pit bull attack

Janie Najera testifies during the punishment phase of the San Antonio fatal pit bull attack trial.

1Former ACS Director Shannon Sims, retired a month after providing that statement during an April 2024 pre-trial hearing for Texas v. Moreno, Schnieder. As of publishing this post, the search for his replacement is already mired in scandal. Despite Sims being the director during most of the period of the lawsuit, he has so far not been named as a defendant. The lawsuit does state (while using a different first name) -- "Defendant Andy Segovia, the City Attorney, Christopher Sims, the head of Animal Control, and the City Manager, were the official policymakers for the relevant Animal Control policies at issue and are charged with actual and constructive knowledge of official policies, practices, or customs within Animal Control. As indicated in the trial testimony of Christopher Sims, Animal Control relied on the City Attorney to provide the interpretation and guidance of the policies they created. Further, Sims testified that Animal Control followed City policy in its deficient and unconstitutional investigation and handling of the dangerous dogs."
2Snow, the white dog, must be mentioned here. What if the owners had four identical brown pit bulls? Snow's coloring alone made her more identifiable to victims and witnesses. So, owners of multiple biting dogs, where the dogs are identical in coloring and shape, may luck out because a victim or witness can't be "totally" sure, which dog did the biting, throwing yet another dagger into the "bite per dog" charade that favors owners of multiple biting dogs.
3City Attorney Andy Segovia is also mired in scandal. In May of 2024, prior to the civil lawsuit being filed, five members of the San Antonio City Council considered asking him to be fired. -- "It has become evident that the City Attorney has consistently failed to follow through,” the memo stated. “Additionally, there have been significant inconsistencies and a demonstrated lack of transparency in his legal opinions which have caused delays and unpredictability ..."

Related articles:
09/20/24: Prosecution Closing Arguments In Fatal Dog Attack Trial; Judge Issues Sentences
09/19/24: San Antonio Police Officer Testifies In Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial
09/18/24: Janie Najera, the Wife of Victim, Testifies In Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial