Please donate to support our work

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

23 thoughts on “Teenager Killed in Suspected 'Canine Attack' in Knott County, Kentucky

Please review our comment policy.

  1. 99% probability that the animals were owned by someone and that they were dogs. Anyone on earth who sets foot outside of their bedroom takes a risk of a grave threat of being attacked by dogs.

  2. Based on the geographical location, this is either going to be from pits or coonhounds. If reports come out to be strays or mixed breeds, this is basically code for pits. Right now, someone is trying to disown their dogs so this doesn’t come back to them.

  3. The main tool that I think would protect a person against a bully dog attack would be a battery powered chainsaw.

    All too often, bully dogs have continued attacking even after being shot and stabbed repeatedly.

    The results of the ATTS show that even gun shots won’t stop 86% of bully dogs. In part 4 of the ATTS, a starter pistol is fired 3 times behind the dog. Dogs that panic fail the test. 86% of bully dogs pass the test.

  4. Too many things left out of the report. Will be interested in following the emerging details. I agree, someone owns these dogs. Prayers, as always, for the family

    • Details? Someone knows, but they still aren’t saying:

      wkyt,com/content/news/Community-remembers-Knott-County-boy-killed-in-animal-attack-568086661.html
      “Updated: Fri 5:38 PM, Feb 21, 2020. … … …Investigators still haven’t said what kind of animal may have been involved in the attack.”

      Just severely depressing.

  5. Your article ends with indicates a “domesticated dog”. Domesticated dogs don’t kill. He may be someones dog but is NOT domesticated. Also we all should follow up on a similar death of a 73 year old schoolteacher in Beaufort in Jan of LAST year. She was also mauled and their is STILL no resolution. I don’t know whether or not there is a coverup or the investigators are all like Barney Fife.

    • We last checked in on that case in January. The evidence was being sent to the second lab and after that, if still no results, it will go to a third and final lab. If there ever is a resolution, that case is still many months away.

  6. Loose dogs should be subject to being shot on sight. Tired of morons who let their dogs run loose with this being the result. This could be prevented with routine house checks by animal uncontrol to be sure dogs are property licensed, microchipped or tagged, vaccinated, contained and insured. If they levied a fine for each violation they’d be rolling in dough. But they’d rather be pit bull social workers after the fact.

    • Yup. Instead of social workers we need animal control to be what they started out as, dog police. With pits being rampant now every ACO needs an AR-15 and a shot gun in addition to their side arm. Bullet proof vest and bite sleeves are a good idea too.

  7. What we have heard about this case is that the boy was staying with a relative and that an adult male in that home, who was apparently also injured, is the owner of the pit bull. We know who he is and have photos of this dog. It seems police are investigating a criminal angle and are just not going to release any more information until they are finished. With police stating, “this is not suspected to be anything other than a terrible accident” indicates this could only be a dog. There is no such thing as an “accident” in police/investigative language when a wild animal kills. Also, we would have heard from the wildlife officials by now. Not an “accident”.

    • Thank you for the update. Local powers know that someone is not going to let these cases be permanently swept under the rug. Thank you for being that someone!

    • Several hundred times, at first blush, appears to be a statistically significant proportion of times that pit bull owners falsely claim that that a family owned pit bull did not perpetrate the attack. I wonder how this compares with the proportion of pit bull family owners who do not falsely deny that the family owned pit bull perpetrated the fatal attack. Oh, and if family survivors of the victim are motivated to falsely claim that the family owned dog did not perpetrate the attack, does that usually mean that police investigators will likewise be motivated to cease investigation of such cases?

      • I was speaking primarily to nonfatal attacks over the last 13 years. It’s a cliché excuse. When there are no witnesses in an outdoor fatal pit bull attack and the victim is exposed to other elements, this excuse is often used as well, unless the dog is standing near the body and covered in blood (but even that does not stop conspiracy theories). What we have heard about this case is that police have not located the brother’s dog. No one in the family knows where it is apparently. As long as the dog is missing (or dead and buried), there is no way to match DNA. This is a child’s death. Police place more emphasis on child cases. So, we have not lost hope yet. Police have not suggested publicly there is an element of criminality, as they said, this is likely a “terrible accident.” But if they do suspect criminality, then they have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt — so they need the dog’s DNA. Separately, but related, there were no witnesses in the recent Georgia case either. Police did not even confiscate the suspected dogs.

        • They could test DNA on dog hair in the home, the car, or the dog house/pen/run outside. Better yet, all the feces in the yard/home. They could take several samples so the uncle can’t claim that is contamination.

    • Who, for the sake of all that is good and right, would obfuscate the truth in order to protect the dog that potentially killed their own child? There is something dreadfully amiss in the mentality (and the morality) of these people if that’s the case.

      I’ve personally known someone to blatantly lie in order to protect their dog from the stigma of having bitten a small child in the face with no provocation and within arms’reach of three adults including the owners. It wasn’t a pit bull (thankfully), but it was the dog of a close relative and she later claimed that her dog had been “startled” by the child… instead of stating the truth that the child had asked permission to pet the dog and had been doing so gently for several long moments before the dog attacked. Why lie in this case? I guess to make her dog look better and deflect any negative feelings people may have had about them keeping him. But lying to cover up for a dog that KILLED YOUR OWN CHILD… what sort of unfeeling callous mother could do that and still live with herself? What sort of uncle could whisk the dog away to places unknown while his nephew lies cold and dead?

      What sort of people are these?

      It’s all rhetorical. I know what sort they are. They are the type that believe their “right” to own their breed of choice is more important than the lives of humans. Thus I shouldn’t be surprised that their actions are completely selfish.

Leave a Reply

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