Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

9 thoughts on “Jury Acquits Man After Machete Attack on Pit Bull

Please review our comment policy.

  1. The irony is the Pit owner who sought out and brought this animal aggressive IED of a dog into the neighborhood gets a pass on systematic animal cruelty!

  2. “Well, if you think that is the right thing to do, then find him not guilty,” an angry Brant said at the end of her emotional closing. “But then, by God, all of us who have big dogs had better keep them locked in our houses.”

    This prosecutor has my Pit nutter spidey sense tingling…

    The Vet’s crying might stem from loss of business sewing up the pit bull’s future animal victims.

    Meanwhile, US Law enforcement has had to shoot over 200 pit bulls so far in 2008 and they decide to go after this guy defending his property!

  3. Unbeleivable that this guy had to go to trial over this. Has common sense completely disappeared from our world?

  4. That’s a stunning lack of research and ignorance on the part of prosecutor Judy Brant. The attacking pit bull had every opportunity to retreat, but chose to ignore accumulating injuries and press on with the attack. That’s classic pit bull aggression. Not to mention this pit had already killed cats in the neighborhood!

    Of course, the pit bull’s owner gave a very different account of the dog’s character, so the old joke is as relevant now as it ever was:

    How do you know when a pit bull owner is lying?

    When their lips are moving.

    Hats off to Ramirez for saving his dog and protecting his family and community. Kudos to the jury for seeing through the nonsense tabled by an ignorant, irresponsible prosecutor, who went after the wrong person! This pit bull’s owner was clearly the only culpable criminal.

  5. Prosecutor Judy Brant:

    “A dog died for nothing,” Brant said, her voice rising during her closing argument. Ramirez “knew his dog wasn’t being killed and instead he did this,” she continued, smacking the table with the machete.”And he did this, and he kept doing it and doing it and doing it,” Brant continued, loudly whacking the machete with each statement.


    Jury did not buy it!

  6. Let me get this straight……when citizens are on their own property, and an aggressive pit bull, off leash and out of the owners control, comes onto that property and starts to maul our pets, we are not supposed to hurt the pit bull in an attempt to save our dogs???? Have I got that right?

    The irony is, the vet kept commenting about the horrendous injuries…multiple, deep stab wounds….but she doesn’t make the obvious connection; why didn’t the pit bull let go and run away after the first blow from the machete? Its because this dog was not going to let Ramirez’s dog go until it was dead. The pit bull was what the dogmen call “dead game”. Any normal dog would have retreated after being pummeled with a tree branch, much less a machete. I am sure the wounds this dog suffered were horrific; a normal dog could not take that kind of punishment, and would have run away.

  7. I think Ramirez should sue the state and the pit bull owner, for harassment and reckless endangerment.

  8. If we take the jury as a poll of the public, the public clearly has no sympathy for pit bulls and is far more educated about them than the owners. All the politicans have to do is cash in on this issue, it already has overwhelming support.

Comments are closed.