Solesky Family Releases 911 Call at the Center of High Court Decision, Tracey v. Solesky

The 911 call portrays a life-threatening attack upon a young boy by a neighbor's pit bull.

Towson, MD December 17, 2012 -- Anthony and Irene Solesky, the parents of a young pit bull mauling victim at the center of Tracey v. Solesky, an appellate court decision that declared pit bulls "inherently dangerous," release the 911 call of the attack upon their son. The life-threatening attack inflicted by a neighbor's pit bull occurred in a residential alley on April 28, 2007 at approximately 5:22 pm. The YouTube video portraying the 911 call is just over nine minutes long.

911 Call of Tracey v. Solesky - Pit Bull Attacks Maryland Boy

Back in August, during a Special Session, the Maryland legislature attempted to diminish the high court's decision by advancing an emergency bill. The effort did not succeed. On January 9, the General Assembly meets for the 2013 Session and is expected to again introduce legislation that will reduce the appellate court's decision. Prior to doing so, Anthony Solesky urges legislators to listen to the 911 call and to resolve that this never happens again in the New Year.

See: Full news release | Maryland Dog Bite Victim Advocacy | Follow: @Supportthecourt

This video was created and edited by DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Our Texas-based nonprofit submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the young pit bull mauling victim. The highest court in Maryland agreed with our brief.

4 thoughts on “Solesky Family Releases 911 Call at the Center of High Court Decision, Tracey v. Solesky”

I wonder whether Maryland voters understand the corruption they are dealing with in their elected officials. Here's one example of how a Maryland official reacted to the Solesky ruling:

"FREDERICK, MD – President Blaine Young of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners today expressed great displeasure over a recent court case of Tracey v. Solesky held by the Maryland Court of Appeals that targets pit bull and pit bull mixture dogs.
President Young said, “Frederick County will not profile pit bulls into extinction due to this unfortunate ruling."
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/05/city-defies-maryland-state-government-refuses-to-profile-dog-breeds/

Puzzling, until you get the next facts that Young himself stated for the press:

"My daughter has a pit bull, and I've never felt uncomfortable around a pit bull. I don't feel uncomfortable around this pit bull," says Blaine Young, President, Frederick County Commissioners."
http://your4state.com/fulltext?nxd_id=251352

In written correspondence with a friend of mine, Young then declared that he considers it none of his business whether his daughter has sufficient insurance for if her pit bull mauls or kills someone. Hey, she's an adult and owns her own home. Alerted to the fact that the price of a home might not cover medical bills, Young wrote 'Thanks for your opinion, have a nice day.'

Commissioner Blaine R. Young will be only one of many officials who are confusing the personal interests of their children and friends with the public interest they're elected to protect. I call this particular kind of 'confusion' corruption. In addition, the arrogance of the response shows that we need to put the fear of the electorate into these politicians.

I hope that many Maryland constituents will take the time to send the link to the 911 call to their elected representatives, with a note that if they 'repair' the Solesky ruling to suit the pit lobby's interests, they better be afraid of the next election.

I also hope that Maryland constituents will publicly post any arrogant, self-serving, 'my daughter'-serving responses they get from politicians. Name and shame them.

Thank you, Sputnik2009, for bringing the above to light. To add to this discussion, here's an essay on the value of having a dog for protection vs. an alarm system:

https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-or-burglar-alarm-which-is-better/dog-or-burglar-alarm-which-is-better.html

Note: The "protection" argument is often made by owners of pit bulls.

Listening to this makes me furious. I thank the Soleskys for making this public. Though it must be so painful, I think it is extremely powerful and hope Maryland legislators will have the courage and decency to listen to it.

Agreed – Thank you Sputnik – very illuminating.

I avoided listening to the recording when I first saw it posted online. I am familiar with the Solesky case, and I was afraid to listen to the 911 call.

It is as scary and awful as I'd feared it would be.

I am filled with so much hatred for that terrible dog and its degenerate child-bullying scumbag owner right now.

Comments are closed.

Please review our comment policy.

Sputnik2009 on December 18, 2012 at 8:47 am said:

I wonder whether Maryland voters understand the corruption they are dealing with in their elected officials. Here's one example of how a Maryland official reacted to the Solesky ruling:

"FREDERICK, MD – President Blaine Young of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners today expressed great displeasure over a recent court case of Tracey v. Solesky held by the Maryland Court of Appeals that targets pit bull and pit bull mixture dogs.
President Young said, “Frederick County will not profile pit bulls into extinction due to this unfortunate ruling."
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/05/city-defies-maryland-state-government-refuses-to-profile-dog-breeds/

Puzzling, until you get the next facts that Young himself stated for the press:

"My daughter has a pit bull, and I've never felt uncomfortable around a pit bull. I don't feel uncomfortable around this pit bull," says Blaine Young, President, Frederick County Commissioners."
http://your4state.com/fulltext?nxd_id=251352

In written correspondence with a friend of mine, Young then declared that he considers it none of his business whether his daughter has sufficient insurance for if her pit bull mauls or kills someone. Hey, she's an adult and owns her own home. Alerted to the fact that the price of a home might not cover medical bills, Young wrote 'Thanks for your opinion, have a nice day.'

Commissioner Blaine R. Young will be only one of many officials who are confusing the personal interests of their children and friends with the public interest they're elected to protect. I call this particular kind of 'confusion' corruption. In addition, the arrogance of the response shows that we need to put the fear of the electorate into these politicians.

I hope that many Maryland constituents will take the time to send the link to the 911 call to their elected representatives, with a note that if they 'repair' the Solesky ruling to suit the pit lobby's interests, they better be afraid of the next election.

I also hope that Maryland constituents will publicly post any arrogant, self-serving, 'my daughter'-serving responses they get from politicians. Name and shame them.
Your Quiet Neighbor on December 18, 2012 at 5:17 pm said:

Thank you, Sputnik2009, for bringing the above to light. To add to this discussion, here's an essay on the value of having a dog for protection vs. an alarm system:

https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-or-burglar-alarm-which-is-better/dog-or-burglar-alarm-which-is-better.html

Note: The "protection" argument is often made by owners of pit bulls.
snack sized dog on December 19, 2012 at 5:36 am said:

Listening to this makes me furious. I thank the Soleskys for making this public. Though it must be so painful, I think it is extremely powerful and hope Maryland legislators will have the courage and decency to listen to it.

Agreed – Thank you Sputnik – very illuminating.
Miss Margo on January 19, 2013 at 11:50 pm said:

I avoided listening to the recording when I first saw it posted online. I am familiar with the Solesky case, and I was afraid to listen to the 911 call.

It is as scary and awful as I'd feared it would be.

I am filled with so much hatred for that terrible dog and its degenerate child-bullying scumbag owner right now.

Please donate to support our work

4 thoughts on “Solesky Family Releases 911 Call at the Center of High Court Decision, Tracey v. Solesky”