Please donate to support our work

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

44 thoughts on “Dramatic Attack Footage Shown in Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing; Two Pit Bulls Attack a Man and His Dog in Chinatown

Please review our comment policy.

    • You might want to watch a few more times too. There is a wealth of information in it. Every detail shows a “classic” irresponsible pit bull owner who then claimed the dogs were not vicious.

      • There was a lot going on it. I found it interesting that the dog owner claimed that these two pit bulls were for “protection.” And he has for pit bulls so I don’t know how much protection he needs. The only thing missing was the owners claiming they were service dogs. That’s what I thought was coming when he started to tell the story about how he hurt his back at his workplace and how the dogs were there for protection.

  1. Sharing a comment left at our Facebook post: “Great example of a dangerous dog hearing. The victim with a well documented and clearly explained case and the dog owners/handlers spewing a bunch of useless and non pertinent information repeated over and over again. In regard to the dog owners video evidence It never ceases to amaze me the amount of owners who place the public in danger after an attack has already occurred just to try and prove a point about their dogs behavior.”

  2. How interesting to see all this played out in the courtroom and to hear the handler’s and the owners’ excuses. It’s pathetic to blame a 12 pound dog for “provoking” the others into this sustained horrific mauling. All the pleadings and excuses and tears and videos trying to prove how friendly the dogs are render ZERO sympathy from me. Do the owners and handler realize how ridiculous they sound when the proof of their dogs’ viciousness is captured right there on video?

    Mr. Yuen points out how thankful he is that the attack was captured on video. Indeed, can you imagine the lies which would have been told about what happened that day if there had not been footage? Hopefully with so many security systems in place all over, more attacks like this will be recorded and will exist to prove that these maulings are really happening and that they are utterly unprovoked and appallingly vicious.

    How unfortunate, though, that Mr. Yuen does not see the role that breed played in what happened to Tashi. Other dogs may attack a smaller dog. But only a handful of breeds will persist in this way, and only that same small handful can inflict such horrible damage.

    • His attitude was interesting. Recall how the hearing officer warned Patrick to never allow his dog to play with dogs twice its weight? I bet he will listen to that advice going forward. Certainly, to miss the relentlessness of this attack or that “any” dog could have carried it out is a grave error.

      There are so many layers (as usual) in this case, the owner even stating at one point he “had eight of these dogs.” Then in the last moments of the hearing showing more true colors as he challenges the hearing officer, “Do you want me to bring all those people in here? To prove my dogs are sweet?

      Mr. Cho hoping he won’t need to take responsibility in a civil lawsuit because despite caring for one of the dogs for a full year, he is “not the owner.” The people in the scene who stood back or continued walking by (stepping over the slippers) — the car that kept on driving. The miserable “slippers.”

  3. This attack by not one but two pit bulls at once was terrifying. I thought that Patrick was going to be hit by the car when he fell in the street in front of a moving vehicle and the dogs were all over him and his pet at the same time.I can only imagine being pulled into the street in front of oncoming traffic with two pit bulls knocking you to the ground with their focus and intent clearly understood- time to kill. Terrifying! I’m so relieved to know the judge made the ruling to euthanize both dogs. I travel through San Francisco frequently and I feel sorry for people who live there. Like Detroit , many are at the mercy of irresponsible, in denial pit bull owners who endanger everyone around themselves with dangerous dogs. Mr Powell said that these two big babies who wouldn’t hurt anyone and in the next breath said they were guard dogs for his business. Big babies are guard dogs? He then informed the court that he has two more. So, these irresponsible people still get to endanger the community with the other two pit bull guard dogs. People like this should be restricted from owning dogs for a period of time after such a vicious attack. They learned nothing. They blamed the victims. They said our dogs are not like that as if the dogs in the video were not doing what they were doing. They continued to flagrantly take the dogs on city streets off leash while the hearing was pending.
    These hearings are so enlightening. Great job again Colleen, raising awareness in so many ways! Thank you!

    • This hearing truly has all of the components. His stated purpose of the dogs was “guarding.” Though apparently not in this case (though I have seen it other SF Vicious and Dangerous dog hearings), they do have the power to bar ownership of dogs for up to three years. “A city or county may prohibit the owner of a vicious dog from owning any dog for up to three years, if such ownership would create a significant threat to the public (Id. §§ 31645 & 31646).”

  4. One of my favorite parts is when the dog owner called the pit bulls the “African-Americans of dog breeds” then pointed out that he was African-American and then started to talk about how persecuted they were and that he felt that was what was happening.This is one of my least favorite tactics by the pitbull people to invoke pity and love for these dogs by comparing them to a race of people. It’s absolutely vile to compare people to dogs.

    • Notice how he pulled that one out as a desperation move at the end. If I were African American, I would not want anyone comparing me to a breed of dog like this. Or any breed, actually. What a shameless attempt to evoke pity.

  5. The attack was disgusting and heartbreaking. The blame game just added insult to injury!

    I just wonder what would have happened to the pits had the cop not recommended euthanasia? The judge asked him what his recommendation was. What if you have a cop who is a pit pusher? I’ve read many quotes in news reports of pit attacks where the police minimized or defended the attack…even attacks on people!

  6. In Alachua County, Florida, when a pit bull killed one of my full grown cows (second attack by the same dog in 10 days) I was not notified of the dangerous dog hearing. It occurred without any input from the victim (me, since livestock is considered property) or the neighbors who witnessed the attack(s). Of course the dog was released to the owner who promised to move it out of the county. The owner then disappeared, leaving a string of creditors looking for him.
    At least here the dogs were put down and the victim got to say his piece. I bet he was stuck with the vet bills, though.

    • You bring up a fantastic point. San Francisco does NOT operate this way, but many jurisdictions do not notify the victim of a dangerous dog hearing. If they are notified, they may not be allowed to testify, which is a violation of Due Process. The way it often technically happens — to avoid constitutional issues of lack of Due Process — is to cut a deal with the owner of the dogs prior to the hearing. On a stipulation, prior to the hearing “the owner promised to move it out of the county” hearing avoided, the matter settled and victims cut out of deal making.

  7. Thanks for your insightful commentary on this case, Colleen.

    We record all of the weekly vicious and dangerous dog hearings at San Francisco City Hall. This case stood out because of both the dramatic security camera footage and the forcefully articulate complainant, Mr. Yuen. If he overlooks the special risk posed by pit bulls, he nevertheless clearly grasps the human irresponsibility that put his dog and himself in danger.

    Black Summers Productions, LLC
    San Francisco, California

  8. This makes me wish every dangerous dog hearing had similar film.

    Two comments about the case:

    1) The ineffectual slapfight being conducted by the owner/handler/special friend of the pit bull was typical. They might claim before and after the attack that Tank was a sweetie who gave special pitty kisses, but during an attack, pit bull owners rarely choose to place their own hands anywhere in the vicinity of Tank’s mouth.

    2) What is it with pit bulls and these complicated ownership situations? When’s the last time you heard of a Goldendoodle living with one person but belonging to another? Even accounting for all the ‘foster’ pit bulls out there, there’s a weird situation with the bull breeds and ownership arrangements. It’s not like BSL is enforced aggressively, so even limited housing doesn’t fully cover it.

    • There are often complicated ownership relationships with dangerous (unstable) dogs; the shuffling and rotating of the dog’s home and owners. This is particularly true if the first bite is undocumented or the owner fears authorities could take action. Then there is the first documented bite and the typical request is to “send the dog to a relative” in another county or state. Problematic dogs eventually become known to neighbors or have threatened another dog or person in their household. Along similar lines, the average problematic pit bull in the shelter system is about 5-7 different households. So, a birth home, 1st owner home, 2nd owner home (rehomed 1st time), shelter system, foster 1, foster 2, adopter 1, returned and adopter 2… Obviously, when there is that many household exchanges, you are looking at a dog with behavioral problems and average dog owners are not equipped to deal with this. So the dog gets passed along, again and again and again. It is a unique phenomenon that does not occur with stable dogs!

      • Unstable, troubled people seem especially drawn to these dogs, so by extension the dog ownership becomes complicated because troubled people bring drama and complication wherever they go. Adults moving back in with elderly parents and bringing their dogs, homeless individuals with roving pits, prison sentences, new boyfriends moving in with mothers of young children, people foisting dogs onto friends or relatives while they work out some issues, owners unable to care for their dogs due to health but having someone else keep them (as in this case), it goes on and on. In many cases it seems as if the dog owners can barely care for themselves, much less care for any animal… especially one or more inherently dangerous animals. I just saw a video online of an attack on a homeless young man by a dog being cared for by “someone” while the actual owner was in jail. I think of the family of the slain 4 year old who was keeping a pit temporarily while their friend lived in a hotel. I understand that people have problems and may fall into hard times, but why include a powerful, dangerous dog in your chaos?

      • True. Funny that I didn’t think of it yesterday, but the pit bull that mauled my dog was involved in just such a multi-household ownership situation:

        1) Actual owner was a young man who had acquired a pit bull then passed it on to his

        2) Middle-aged doting auntie who lived in a different county; she then moved the pit bull into the nearby home of her

        3) Elderly mother (why? She mentioned after the attack that she knew it ‘didn’t like’ dogs, so undoubtedly there had been an Incident) and then after it attacked my dog, auntie moved the pit bull

        4) Into a new, undisclosed location with unknown people (I ran into endless roadblocks getting anything official done about that pit bull, but apparently my fruitless efforts did convince them to get it out of town)

        5) Doting auntie’s sister later claimed the pit bull had died soon after of heartworm – a very, very unusual COD for a suburban pet these day – so who knows where it ended up.

    • Sara, interesting observation re. the pit owners and muddled living situation. Resembles many dangerous dog and/or animal hoarding situations I have seen…where animals are kept in various places, with one main ‘owner’ never quite 100% responsible for the various other animal “sub keepers’” actions. This set up is common. Bad animal “rescue” people & organizations do this, storing animals (hoarding) at various secret locations…creating a barrier for direct responsibility by the actual owner. A.k.a. “Passing the buck”… no one appears to be directly responsible. It’s a tactic employed by the devious, who have a lot to hide.

      Btw, I just ordered two ‘Coyote vests’ and throat-protection Collars for my two smaller dogs (14 lbs & 16 lbs), from a company that makes these. I live in the N.C. suburbs, and NEVER feel safe walking my own dogs because of all the pit bulls & large dogs in neighborhood. I figure my little dogs will have A chance of survival, wearing the ridiculously heavy-duty throat protection and kevlar body armor… even though I am with them when they go out.

      You see, my big dog’s throat was ripped out by a pit bull a few years ago, on property (I since moved). I did everything I could to save him, and I was lucky to only be bitten all up my right leg and arm…so painful, so traumatizing. $7,0000.+ vet bills, but miraculously, my dog survived. We were never the same, though. I no longer care what other people think…my only concern is our safety. If I ever were to take my dogs to walk through a town park, or even just in town, I would want them to be wearing the throat guards, at a bare minimum.

      Can you believe we have to live like this??? —My rights to live maul-free is trumped by idiots’ rights to own mauling machines…

      Anyway, I am relieved the 2 dangerous pits in video were humanely euthanized. But there are still a zillion more out there…

      If you have a cat or dog, I suggest getting them a “coyote collar”/ throat protection at the very least they’ll look super bada** cool!

      • I’d suggest you get some hollow points and END the pits when they attack. It’s the only way to be sure they don’t attack again, ever.

  9. Wow! Harrowing to watch this attack. Notice, again, how the pits are wagging their tails throughout and after the attack. This is why people are so deceived by these monsters. Even in the police videos when they’re being led away after a kill/attack, they appear docile. They are described by shelters and owners as big lovable lugs, until they’re NOT. They are unpredictable and deadly.

  10. Sellis wrote:

    Unstable, troubled people seem especially drawn to these dogs, so by extension the dog ownership becomes complicated because troubled people bring drama and complication wherever they go.

    In military parlance, a “force multiplier” is a factor that amplifies troops’ ability to accomplish a goal.

    I consider pit bulls to be “damage multipliers.” Way too many pibble owners and “caretakers” and “rescuers” are uncannily linked by unstable personalities and chaotic lives to begin with. The addition of the pibble factor amplifies the harm these people cause to themselves and others.

    It’s hard enough to address the social, financial, medical and often criminal damage caused by pathologically unstable and irresponsible humans, without further adding the load of the damage caused by these people’s frankenmaulers. In that sense, the pit bulls are really a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself (human pathology.

  11. I keep commenting on this because there is so much to delve into, especially when it comes to the excuses and the deflection of the pit owners.

    What struck me just now is how commonly “kissing” is brought up by pit owners. The girlfriend of the owner in the hearing mentioned how jealous she is of the dogs because her boyfriend is “always kissing” them. I would never be jealous of the way my husband pets our small dog, and when she attempts to lick it is discouraged. What kind of kissing would be enough to warrant this kind of jealousy?

    Many of us have seen the disgusting meme of the woman being licked in the mouth by her pit. I don’t know where the image came from, but this seems to be the kind of “kissing” that is acceptable to many pit bull owners. I have never heard other dog owners talk about their pets in such sexualized and anthropomorphized terms… “he’s such a lover, so handsome, loves to snuggle and give kisses to me all over.” Most dog owners might say, “what a cute dog” but pit owners seem to use heavily charged language and to revel in images of their dogs licking them in the face or laid out on a bed.

    Is it because they want to “prove” how they have magical powers over their dangerous beasts? Or is there something more unpleasant going on here… is it because pit bulls with their smooth coats over muscular bodies, broad “smiles” and less canid looking faces are somehow more appealing to baser instincts? Not trying to be crude here, but it seems that pit owners have an abnormal level of attraction to their dogs. Is this just my imagination or does it seem to ring true to anyone else?

    • I don’t know where the image came from, but this seems to be the kind of “kissing” that is acceptable to many pit bull owners. I have never heard other dog owners talk about their pets in such sexualized and anthropomorphized terms… “he’s such a lover, so handsome, loves to snuggle and give kisses to me all over.”

      There’s a ton of anthropomorphizing of dogs and cats by their owners. I don’t put costumes on my pets and never will, but clearly millions of people think this is just dandy, cute and hilarious.

      As for dog as “lover” … without a broad survey, I think it would be difficult to credibly characterize it as exclusively or almost all a pibble owner thing. What it does appear to be is a female dog owner of a male dog thing. When male dog owners refer to their female dogs as “girlfriends,” it’s in punchline form, and not really playing up the physical affection aspect of the relationship with their dog. For whatever reasons — someone could write a psychological treatise on this phenomenon — certain female dog owners really, really relish the physical affection from their male dogs, and gush about that affection in terms that raise the eyebrows of people not, uhhh, in the bubble.

      Other female dog owners turn their dogs, both male and female, into their babies. Obviously easier to do with small dogs. And obviously some cases are more far out there in weirdo-land than others.

      People choose a certain type/breed of dog because they are looking for certain traits and functions in a dog. There’s nothing inherently weird or unbalanced in and of itself about wanting a large(r), strong dog, or wanting to feel protected around/by such a dog. Keeping dogs for protection is as old as man’s relationship with domesticated canines. And there’s nothing inherently weird or unbalanced about wanting an affectionate dog for companionship.

      Companion pets can fill in gaps in the lives of their human owners in ways that are constructive. People who lack human affection or close companionship in their lives can gain a lot of comfort, joy and affection from having pets close by. The line between healthy and unhealthy affection between owner and pet is, I would say, not 100% uniform or precise everywhere. Some owners are overly attached to their pets without that attachment veering off into psychosis.

      But, yeah, some pet owners are flat-out sick, and their relationship with their pet is one of the conspicuous rings in which the circus of their psychodrama gets played out.

      • In this context, the pit bulls are non-consenting victims. And there’s nothing biologically or genetically distinct about pit-bull-ness (versus other dog breeds) that produces this type of abuse. Therefore,
        ending the existence of pit bulls won’t end the abuse. All it would result in is having the human perps move on to another breed or breeds to victimize. Following your argument’s logic, each “top victim breed” of this crime would successively have to be culled to non-existence. (First they came for the pit bulls … then they came for the Great Danes …?)

        I don’t think bestiality victimization is an argument for extinguishing pit bulls. The flawed (for anyone wanting to live in a civilized society) and dangerous genetics of pit bulls are adequate reason to end the breed.

        At the very least, strong regulation of pit bull ownership and s/n requirements that get enforced (ah, there’s the catch) would reduce the numbers of sociopaths having access to these particular types of dogs. Fewer pit bulls would be sexually victimized, but that would pale compared to the numbers of innocent humans and other animals who would no longer be victimized by pit bulls and their loutish owners — which is, IMO, a more important goal.

    • I agree and wonder about this. I find the pit bull mouth repellent; big, wide and sloppy. Dogs are, by nature, food driven. They lick faces because humans have particles/smells of food on our faces. This is why dogs lick faces, not that they love their owners THAT much. Professional dog trainers warn against sleeping with any dog. (Small ones maybe ok?) But dogs need an alpha, and sharing a bed reduces the human to an equal or less.

  12. Henry Cho blames Mr. Yuen’s 12-lb dog for provoking the attack. The pibble owners blame Henry Cho. Anyone recognize a pattern here?

    It’s amazing (not in a good way) how much bull-puckey and blame-shifting is thrown about by these people even with the presence of video documenting the attack.

    Logic suggests that either Mr. Powell failed to raise & train his pit bulls not to attack another canine, or the pit bulls are flat-out untrainable. There is no third choice. And yet Mr. Powell, who clearly was oblivious to the danger to public safety his dogs posed before they so amply displayed their viciousness in full view of the world, stands there in court and maintains that his dogs will never ever ever do something like that (or something worse) again.

    Why would this kind of claim have any standing whatsoever in a court of law? Why would he even think that his stated assessment of his dogs has any credibility whatsoever? Either he has no clue about what his dogs have a tendency to do … or else he knows damn well and he is lying to the court when he says His Pibbles Pose No Threat to the Public. Again, there is no third choice.

    I get that dog owners can become very attached to their dogs. I’m very attached to mine. What I don’t get is an owner’s repeated adamant insistence in a court of law that a dog that has demonstrated its dangerousness by committing an unprovoked vicious attack … is not dangerous.

    Have these people no shame? Apparently not.

    And nothing says “Clueless, Irresponsible and Contemptuous of the Law” like
    (1) taking your pibble out on the street unleashed in violation of local leash law
    (2) videotaping your unleashed pibble roaming around uncontrolled
    (3) playing that video in a court of law
    (4) as “evidence” that your pibble is not dangerous
    (5) at a dangerous dog hearing, which you are attending because your pibble mauled and nearly killed another dog.

    Who thinks this way? Who fails to think, period? Pibble owners, apparently.

    • The arrogance and ignorance and disrespect for the court and public safety is astounding. How dare they take either of these dogs ANYWHERE unleashed? And how dumb does one have to be to then show that to the court? And how much of a liar is a person who does all this but then claims it will “never happen again”? Notice too how the girlfriend during her videos mentions that her fiance is Lakota Sioux, yet he claims to be African American when it’s convenient to try to drum up sympathy for his dogs by implying that people are racist toward them.

      Good grief. My sister has been to hearings like this since her cat was killed by a neighbor’s loose pit bull while it was walking with its female owner. The female owner never came to the hearings, although she was the one who witnessed the attack. She told her husband that the dog was protecting her from my brother-in-law (who was indoors at the time). She showed zero sympathy about the loss of the cat. Her husband (who did attend the hearings) claimed his dog is perfectly safe and then later got in my sister’s face with thinly veiled threats. I know this couple well, and they are usually kind, reasonable people. But they are stooping to the levels of the lowest pit defenders. What makes people change their whole character to defend a vicious dog? I know why… it’s because if they admit their dog is dangerous, they are admitting they have made a mistake in getting a mauling breed.

    • This insistence that their dog isn’t dangerous is what confuses me (and infuriates me). I have a GSD. He is inherently dangerous–not because he has ever indicated any desire to hurt a person or another animal, and not because he has ever hurt a person or animal, or bit one–and he has had opportunities to do so. A little off-leash dog ran up to us the other day on our walk (WHY do people think their little dogs are okay off-leash??), barking and growling; it jumped at him, and he put it to the ground with, I think, as much gentleness and restraint as any large young dog can show–certainly the little dog was not hurt.

      But he is a big strong dog, with sharp teeth. The fact that I can put my hand between those teeth to take away food or a toy, the fact that if we both grab for the toy at the same time as we play and his mouth starts to close over my hand he immediately yanks his head back without biting down…all of those things make me feel confident in him, but not enough that I let strangers just come up and fondle him or let him run around off-leash in busy public areas etc. I am constantly aware that all it takes is one accident, one person he perceives as a threat to me, and someone could get hurt. That’s the fact you have to accept when you own a powerful dog, period. Do I think my dog is a danger to others? No (unless they’re threatening me, in which case you bet your butt I think he’s a danger to them). Do I think he is dangerous, or potentially dangerous? Absolutely, I am aware that he can or could be. (Heck, our big gentle 10-year-old lab who adores children is potentially dangerous, because again, she is a big girl with a mouth full of teeth, and she is not a human but a dog.) Which means it is my job and responsibility to make sure he is under my control at all times.

      To deny that any powerful dog is dangerous, much less a game-bred bloodsport dog, is just moronic.

      • The fact that there is a video record of Lakota and Cochise pack-mauling a smaller dog, unprovoked, is the most blatant evidence there can be of a break-down in the code.

        The code, among civilized people, is that if you are going to own a dog powerful enough to inflict damage to humans or other animals, then that dog needs to be under your control at all times, so that any damage so inflicted is in the context of legal, intentional activity such as hunting.

        The owners and custodians of Cochise and Lakota failed to control them. This failure resulted in serious injury to another dog in an encounter that was nearly fatal but tor the strenuous defense of the victim dog by that dog’s owner, who also sustained injuries. The pit bulls dragged the victim dog and that dog’s owner into traffic on a busy city street — another potential public safety hazard.

        For the owner(s) to stand there in court and insist that they are able/willing to control the pit bulls with 100% assurance that their dogs will never again pose a danger to the public — is a flat-out whopper of an untruth. You know how to identify a responsible owner? They prevent this kind of thing from happening in the first place. When an owner or custodian fails to control their dog & the dog attacks unprovoked and causes serious damage, it’s too late to claim “I’m a responsible owner, judge, honest! I’ll make sure this never happens again!”

        The maroons at fault in a situation like this are the LAST people who should be entrusted with the custody of the attacking dogs after such an attack.

        There wasn’t really any mitigating factor here in terms of something to suggest Lakota and Cochise, if given to “better” owners, would not attempt another mauling. They weren’t acting out of fear to an unforeseen, unusual stimulus. They weren’t wounded. They weren’t threatened. They saw another, smaller dog & attempted to kill it. That isn’t circumstantial behavior … it’s genetic. Euthanization was the sensible decision. Those dogs would have been a hazard to the safety of every living thing around them if they had been rehomed.

      • And yeah, you know that you have good control of your powerful dog if you can successfully rough-play with your dog with appropriate toys and cues.

        I just came back inside from playing with my GSD mix in the back yard. We were wrestling with a tug rope. Sometimes we rough-play with a bite sleeve. He likes to “wolf out” and it’s great exercise for him. He knows there is a context for wolfing out, and it’s only when the tug & bite toys are out, and the rough-play is over when I assume a non-engagement stance & put the toys away. His calm-down happens quickly, inside of 5-10 seconds. He sits, and I take a knee beside him and pet and praise him.

        Point being, yes, there is a basic natural aggressiveness in my dog, and I know this because I see it when he wolfs out. He has had plenty of opportunity to ignore the rules of our rough-play, but he chooses to obey because he is rewarded for his obedience. It has built an incredible trust between us.

        I can’t imagine living with a powerful dog that I didn’t trust. Nor could I imagine living with a powerful dog whose basic natural aggression just gets denied and ignored.

  13. It’s infuriating to hike in the Bay Area parks where dogs are allowed and see so many pits, some off leash. Young women, families with kids. I’m on a BART train, and someone gets on with a huge ugly pit on a thin leash. One of my housemates tried to move one in, and I screamed the house down (luckily I was paying more so I won that one). You can’t forget about them for a minute.

  14. Our thanks to all who make these reports available!

    It’s obvious that bully people do not have dog welfare, not even bully dog welfare, as a priority.

    If so, the bully people would be picketing the hearings of the selfish ignorant and cruel owners/keepers. The keepers, who permit bully dogs to reach their victims, then show videos of the dogs loose and unmuzzled after the attack: proof of the keepers’ ongoing depraved neglect and selfishness.

    If bully people cared about dogs or even bully dogs, they would demand restrictions on the intentional breeding for deadly dog aggression.

    No person, business or organization that has the welfare of all dogs as a priority wants more dog killing dogs to be born.

    Dogmen continually breed for
    unprovoked
    prolonged
    neutral ground
    suicidal
    deadly dog aggression. These traits are essential for winning in a distant pit.

    What trait could be worse if you care about dog welfare?

  15. One element making the off leash dog more popular is the use of shock collars, on nice, pet dogs, to ‘teach’ simple commands such as sit, down and come. The lure is to have the dog off leash. Shock collar trainers assure owners they can have the dog off leash and be ‘in control.’ This only adds to the dog park and dog day care mentality that dogs need to be off leash. In my forty three years as a trainer I have never seen the popularity of shock collars on pet dogs so high. Classes here in Southern Ca are held with all dogs on shock collars, or, as they are called, remote or ‘tickle’ collars.

  16. Have watched the video, and followed the thought provoking comments. I to often see these type of owners, of these type of dogs. The glaring, constant is, “my dog would never”. Followed closely by, “not my fault”. Both of which are dilusional lies. Thanks to everyone, especially this site for keeping up up to date on issues of public safety. As an aside, I wish ALL areas would have these open, recorded dangerous dog hearings

    • Yes, the San Francisco hearings almost need to come with an asterisk. “Please do not assume a dangerous dog hearing in your jurisdiction will be similar!” Though the SF hearings are open, we still would not be seeing any of this is video if Black Summers Productions were not there filming.

  17. When, oh when are these people going to understand that you cannot control ONE pitbull (never mind two) by arm strength? It starts out with the pitbulls dragging him down the street out of control.

    This behaviour starts long before the little dog even comes into sight. He loved his dogs, he claims, but not enough clearly, to spend the time it takes to teach them to “heel” and instead of paying a trainer for dog 1, he spent more money on dog 2.

    Kudos to the young woman who was courageous enough to grab one pitbull’s leash when she saw the owner was unable to handle them. Risky, but very brave.

    The fact is, this owner wasn’t even responsible enough to put the dogs down AFTER he was involved in this attack.

    Reprehensible.

  18. I think people in San Francisco still remember when Diane Whipple was killed by two Presa Canarios in 2001. They know how dangerous dogs can be. That’s why the police officer recommended the dogs be euthanized.

  19. Such a horrifying video. That owner has to be one of the biggest pit idiots I’ve ever seen. Just what the heck was that leash situation? Why was one dog attached to the other instead off being held by him? Who walks their dog like that? That pit was several feet ahead of him when the attack happened, utterly ridiculous. Then he didn’t even bother pulling his dogs in the direction away from the victim after the first attack when he tried to pass by again, so of course they were able to go after the smaller dog again. Just when I didn’t think pit owners could be more reckless, this guy shows up. SMH.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *