Posted on May 21, 2014 by Colleen Lynn

A Special Tribute to Connecticut In Honor of National Dog Bite Prevention Week 2014

DogsBite.org - In our hunt to track down an original topic for this year's post during National Dog Bite Prevention Week -- which does little to raise awareness of the growing epidemic of horrific dog "maulings" -- we ran across the mauling of a Connecticut postal carrier that we reported on in May 2009. We wondered if any news had been reported since? Also, what had become of the dogs' owner, David Holland, Jr., who we designated at that time as the "poster boy" pit bull owner?

What we discovered in our web searches was painful, predictable and unfortunate. All told, we discovered how broken and faulty most civil and criminal systems are at holding dog owners accountable after one or multiple violent attacks. Rarely can either legal system be considered a "deterrent" to a future damaging attack. This winding story focuses on three people: postal carrier Jeff Glenn, dog owner David Holland, Jr., and Norwich Animal Control Officer Michele Kellough.

The Mauling of a Postal Carrier

On April 30, 2009, Jeff Glenn was viciously attacked by two pit bulls while walking his route on Harland Place in Norwich. He suffered a severed artery in one leg, broken bones, a dislocated shoulder and 22 puncture wounds. Had it not been for carpenter Tage Wright, who was working nearby, Glenn may not have survived. Wright heard his anguished screams and ran to help, wielding his framing hammer. "I thought someone was getting killed," Wright would later say.

"I heard some screaming. I grabbed my framing hammer and went outside," Wright said, pointing to an overturned plastic patio chair. "He was down on the ground scrambling with that chair and trying to fend off two pit bulls. They would have killed him."

Undaunted when the dogs turned their attention to him, Wright said he waved the hammer and yelled, waiting for them to attack.

"They both looked like they were going to make a pass at me," Wright said. "Maybe they know a mad carpenter with a framing hammer when they see one. They have teeth. I have a hammer." - Greg Smith, The Norwich Bulletin

At the time of the attack, the dogs' owner was 19-years old. Due to his blistering performance in a news interview after the attack, Holland became the "poster boy" pit bull owner we termed, "beyond vacuous." It is a video one must see to believe (a remnant is left thanks to Zupf). Police had previously been to Holland's home 28 times for complaints, one being dog-related, and Holland had owned the parents of the pit bulls, which had viciously attacked up to two people.1

Partial Transcript from Video:

Reporter: David Holland owns the dogs and says they got loose through a hole in his back fence and neighbors should have told him they were loose.

Holland: Why shouldn't they come report it to me or call the police like they usually do?

Reporter: So they've called police before?

Holland: (He laughs) Yeah, they call the police on me all the time.

Reporter: He's laughing and joking while looking across the street at a yard smeared with blood. Police say they have been called to the house 28 times for a variety of reasons. The history extends past the two dogs to their parents. Investigators say the dogs' parents were put down after a vicious attack on a Meals-on-Wheels driver.

Reporter: What do you say about the dogs?

Holland: (After long slurp from his drink) They were protecting this house.

Reporter: From a mailman?

Holland: I came outside and he was hitting them in the head with the chair (badda-bing)...

Reporter: Do you feel bad they got the mailman?

Holland: Of course I feel bad, who wouldn't feel bad? It's a grown man. You see the way he was screaming? You would have felt bad (followed by a long slurp).

Reporter: You're kinda smiling.

Holland: I'm smiling because you're pissing me the fuck off.

After the attack, Holland surrendered his two 8-month old pit bulls, Miracle and Fat Boi, to be euthanized. He was issued fines totaling $756. No criminal charges were filed, despite previous attacks by both parent pit bulls he had owned. Animal Control Officer Michele Kellough stated then she recalled the dogs' mother and father as "vicious." The mother was euthanized because of an attack and the father was the suspect in the mauling of a Meals-on-Wheels driver, Kellough said.

"It’s the same 2 percent of dog owners that we see time and time again with problems. It’s sad. - Animal Control Officer Michele Kellough

The Civil Lawsuit (Painful)

On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff, Jeffrey Glenn, filed a thirteen-count complaint against David Holland, Jr., Gerri Scott, Jayleianna Holland, Michele Kellough, the city of Norwich, Yi Len Wang and Xui Li Zheng (the last two were the property owners). Findlaw.com has part of the decision online, specifically the motion to strike, by the Superior Court of Connecticut, which regards three counts pertaining to Kellough and the city of Norwich in Jeffery Glenn v. David Holland, Jr., et al.

The Court granted the defendants' motion to strike all three counts (7, 8 and 9) and are described below in the decision. Simply put, Glenn's legal team failed to "pierce" governmental immunity.

Motion to Strike

(In count seven) of his revised complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Michele Kellough, an animal control officer for Norwich, caused the plaintiff injuries by her recklessness. The plaintiff alleges that Kellough acted recklessly under General Statutes § 52-557n(b)(7) because she had notice that the two pit bull dogs that allegedly attacked the plaintiff were born, and, although she knew that the parents of the pit bull dogs had been quarantined and she did not require the dogs born to the parents to be registered, vaccinated, monitored or evaluated by a veterinarian. The plaintiff further alleges that Kellough ignored an "obvious and apparent risk by not investigating the puppies born to parents known to be a threat to public health and safety." The plaintiff alleges that as a result, the plaintiff was "viciously attacked and severely injured by the two pit bull dogs born to ferocious parents."

(In count eight), entitled "Endangerment of an Identifiable Victim," the plaintiff alleges most of the same facts as count seven. He does not, however, incorporate paragraphs eleven through fifteen of count seven, in which the plaintiff alleges that Kellough acted recklessly. Instead, count eight adds that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the conduct of Kellough in that: (a) "The plaintiff was an identifiable victim in that as a Postal Carrier employed by the United States Postal Service, he was required to come within a close proximity, on a daily basis, of the house in which the violent and ferocious dogs were being kept"; (b) "It was, or should have been, readily apparent to the defendant that the dogs posed a serious threat of imminent harm to the health and safety of the above mentioned identifiable victim"; and (c) "It was, or should have been, readily apparent to the defendant that failure to take reasonable precautions to remove or contain the dogs would subject the identifiable victim to the imminent harm detailed above."

(In count nine), which is directed against the city of Norwich, the plaintiff alleges the same conduct as count seven, except that it does not allege that Kellough acted in violation of § 52-557n(b)(7). Instead, count nine adds that the city of Norwich employed Kellough as an animal control officer, that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by Kellough while she was acting in the performance of her duties and within the scope of her employment, and that Kellough is personally liable to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff alleges, Norwich is "liable to payment on behalf of" Kellough pursuant to General Statutes § 7-465. - Superior Court of Connecticut

Many victims write to DogsBite.org and ask, "Why don't more people sue animal control agencies (aka the government)?" If one reads this decision, this becomes evident. Essentially, it is called "sovereign immunity" or "governmental immunity." We saw this raised as a defense in Washington state by Pierce County in the Sue Gorman case. Gorman's legal team succeeded to "pierce" governmental immunity. The appellate court ruled that Pierce County did have a duty to act.2

On November 30, 2012, the Superior Court issued another decision, specifically the motion for summary judgment, in Glenn v. Holland, Jr., after the plaintiff issued a revised complaint on November 29, 2010, pertaining to the three counts struck by the Court and an objection to the defendant's motion for summary judgment filed April 2, 2012. Included in the objection was a copy of a 2007 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion stating that pit bulls are inherently violent.3

Twenty-four days later, the highest court in Maryland would issue the seminal decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous," which would have had much greater influence. Timing was not on Glenn's side, nor was the law. As expected, the Court granted summary judgment to Michele Kellough and the city of Norwich on all three counts, freeing them of liability. (The discussion in this decision explains more about how the plaintiff failed to "pierce" governmental immunity.)

Motion for Summary Judgment

(Count 7) In the present case, the plaintiff has not provided any affidavits or admissible evidence to suggest that Kellough had any awareness that the plaintiff would have been endangered by her failure to act. Even if Kellough was aware of the dangerous propensities of the parent dogs, there is no evidence to demonstrate that Kellough was aware of the dangerous propensities of the pit bull puppies...

(Count 8) In the present case, as the defendants note, the plaintiff has pointed to no authority by which Kellough could require that the pit bull puppies be registered, vaccinated, monitored, or evaluated by a veterinarian ... Additionally, in Kellough's deposition, she stated that she was not aware of any regulation requiring her to follow up with violent dogs' puppies... - Superior Court of Connecticut

It was not Kellough's duty to act nor was it mandated by any regulation, despite her knowledge that Holland was a repeat vicious dog owner, having owned the attacking parents, and that 8-months later, their offspring would violently attack. The problem lies in the lack of any regulation for instances of "lineage" attacks and the failure to create laws that address exactly what Kellough stated: "It’s the same 2 percent of dog owners that we see time and time again with problems."

Successfully piercing governmental immunity can be very difficult. What is not difficult is for city or county officials to address repeat vicious dog owners to prevent new attacks. According to Kellough, we see this issue "time and time again." Do they do anything about this well known problem? No. This is another theme Glenn's legal team tried to express. How can one have ample evidence of the 2 percent and still fail to take action? Holland was not criminally charged either.

The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop"

In Connecticut and most other states, there are no criminal consequences for being a repeat owner of vicious dogs. We have discussed the "vicious dog owner loop" before (See: East Texas Woman Severely Mauled by Pit Bull at 'Dog Friendly' Private RV Park). A dog violently attacks; authorities deem it dangerous and the dog is put down. The owner gets a new dog and it viciously attacks; authorities deem it dangerous and the dog is put down. The vicious dog loop can play endlessly.

Severe injuries can be racked up by multiple victims without many consequences, as long as each injury is inflicted by a "different" dog.

What should be true in all U.S. states is that every attack resulting in serious injury should be legally attached to its owner for at least 10-years and "cumulative" dog bite penalty laws should be established. Currently, the same dog has to viciously attack a person two times before criminal charges can be pursued against its owner. Owners of vicious dogs are put on notice of this. Thus, they often put the attacker down and start the vicious dog owner loop once again with a clean slate.

The Progression of a Criminal (Predictable)

Prior to entering into "big league" criminality, police had been called out to Holland's home 28 times. Holland had also owned four pit bulls by the age of 19 that attacked up to three people, at least one resulting in life-threatening injuries. Though we have little information about the attacks by the parent dogs, both were put down and termed "vicious," so the dogs presumably inflicted serious injuries. Was there any doubt after viewing the 2009 video where Holland was headed?

In November 2013, 24-year old David D. Holland, Jr., was arrested after violating a protective order and reportedly threatening victims with a stolen handgun. Holland was charged with criminal use of a firearm, criminal possession of a firearm, theft of a firearm, criminal violation of a protective order, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, two counts of risk of injury to a minor, threatening and first-degree reckless endangerment. Holland was held on a $100,000 bond.

Holland was arrested again on February 28, 2014 after fleeing a motor vehicle stop. He was initially stopped for motor vehicle violations according to police. While speaking with police, Holland sped away. Holland was charged with multiple narcotics violations, criminal possession of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a permit, carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle, interfering with police, traveling too fast and additional violations. Holland was held on a $250,000 bond.

According to the Connecticut Department of Corrections website, Holland is currently an inmate at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, which is a level 4/5, high/maximum security level multi-mission facility for adult males. He was admitted on February 28, 2014, the same day he was charged. At last check (May 17, 2014), his status remained "unsentenced" at the website. Just 24-years old, Holland is now loaded up with felony charges, most occurring in a 3-month stint.4

At the very least, Glenn and Connecticut residents will not have to worry about Holland owning a new set of vicious pit bulls any time soon.

What happens when Holland gets out of jail and wants a pair of new dogs? Are there any doubts as to what kinds of dogs he would choose? He will have a criminal record running up and down his back spine, but not one of those offenses will include violent injuries inflicted by his dogs on innocent people. Clearly, because the civil and criminal systems are so often broken and faulty for dog attack victims, some cities simply ban these dogs. This option is not available in Connecticut.

The Pit Bull Problem Will Worsen (Unfortunate)

In June 2013, Connecticut legislators passed a statewide anti-BSL law.5 In November, one month after the legislation went into affect, the Norwich Bulletin wrote an editorial defending their position that the matter should be left to local communities and not a "sweeping statewide mandate." The editorial followed the horrific Wilton attack -- a family pit bull tore off one of its owner's arms and ripped off her other hand. The victim was found half dead hiding under her car by passersby.

In addition to the loss of a limb and another hand, Murray had bite wounds all over her body, Wakeman said. She was brought by ambulance to Norwalk Hospital, where she was listed in stable condition.

"She lost all of her left arm and a portion of her right arm," he said.
Monday's mauling recalls the 2009 chimpanzee attack on Charla Nash, of Stamford. In that incident she was blinded and horribly mutilated; she later received a face transplant.

But the big difference between that case and Monday's dog attack is that chimpanzees, cute as they may be when they're infants, grow up to be wild animals -- muscular, temperamental and unpredictable ones at that.

Dogs, conversely, have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years, making Monday's attack all the more terrifying. - John Burgeson and Wes Duplantier, Ctpost.com

The legislation sailed through the House passing unanimously. It passed the Senate by a 30-4 margin. This is unfortunate for Connecticut residents, but not unsurprising given the deep hooks animal organizations have in the state. In April 2014, the same legislative body muted Charla Nash's ability to sue the state after a "pet" chimpanzee ripped off her face and hands. This too was a governmental immunity issue, but it never had its day in court -- the victim was denied this.

In Conclusion

National Dog Bite Prevention Week does not address the dismal reality of many animal control departments and city or county officials that could take preventative actions, but do not -- not even when involving the "time and time again" miserable 2 percent, the repeat owners of vicious dogs. Nor does the week-long event address the civil or criminal systems that regularly fail to hold the owner's of vicious dogs responsible, thus failing to act as any type of prevention mechanism.

So, this year for National Dog Bite Prevention Week, instead of "standing like a tree" and being devoured by attacking pit bulls as the dog advocates advise, demand that dangerous dog owners be regulated to actually prevent mauling attacks. Demand an end to the "vicious dog loop" once and for all. Encourage lawmakers to establish "cumulative" dog bite penalty laws that stick with owners for a minimum of 10-years, which would significantly impact the re-offending 2 percent.

See: Appellate Court Decisions that Recognize the Dangerousness of the Pit Bull Breed

1Kellough's statement indicated two separate attacks. However, both dogs may have been involved in the same attack involving the Meals-on-Wheels victim. What is important is that both parent pit bulls were euthanized due to being vicious.
2We anticipate the Gorman case will be appealed to the highest court in Washington, The Supreme Court, so Gorman still may have to pass one more test.
3We believe we located this 2007 opinion, which is a "non-binding," advisory and unpublished opinion and was likely unhelpful to Glenn's case. McNeely or Matthews would have been better choices. Though the critical issue here was the basic problem of suing government officials for a failure to protect a citizen -- proving both a legal duty to do so AND to "pierce" governmental immunity.
4Prior to November 2013, Holland, had been convicted of multiple misdemeanors (2010 to April 2013).
5Connecticut does have home rule. We did not have enough time to investigate this prior to publishing this post.

Posted on May 15, 2014 by Colleen Lynn

Ceara Schofield was attacked by three American bulldogs. Click an image to see a larger view.

Victim Recounts Attack
Opp, AL - On March 4, 2014, three family American bulldogs viciously attacked 18-year old Ceara Schofield and the dogs' owner, 37-year old Kristina Picktron. Both were hospitalized after the attack. Ceara's injuries were so severe, she was airlifted to Southeast Alabama Medical Center in Dothan. Six days after the attack, Ceara spoke with WAKA in an exclusive interview. Her older sister recently contacted DogsBite.org and shared Ceara's injury photos and a statement:

Ceara is the survivor of a vicious attack by three white American bulldogs. She is 18-years old and was attacked on March 4, 2014. Due to the severity of her injuries she was airlifted to Dothan, Alabama where she immediately under went emergency surgery. She was in surgery over four hours where they pieced her back together. She sustained 45 bite injuries that required over 300 stitches, 100 staples and drain tubes placed into both arms. She sustained bite injuries to her head, neck, ear, both arms, hands, both legs front and back, and her buttocks. The doctors told us they could not give us any reason for her to be alive other than God because of the severity of the injuries and the critical locations throughout her body that were barely missed. We have just passed two months since the accident and it has been a painful and hard two months. We know there is still a long road to recovery ahead of us, but we will continue to embrace each day because Ceara is a fighter and a survivor. If I were asked to give just one piece of advice it would be, CHOOSE YOUR FAMILY DOGS WISELY. No matter how well you think you may know them; Ceara had known these dogs for over four years. Never own more than one powerful dog breed either. By the grace of God Ceara survived a pack attack by these dogs. - Mary Cain

The three lower photographs depicting her injuries are deceptive in that they show them after being stapled closed. This is why we included the top right image of her left arm injury, to show how it looked before being stapled closed (See: image of her left arm after being sewn closed). With a little imagination, readers can imagine what the rest of her injuries looked like prior to being stapled closed during a 4-hour emergency procedure. Ceara suffered 45 separate bite injuries.1

During the WAKA interview, Ceara told the reporter: "Well, they bit me twice and then I went numb, so I couldn't really feel anything, besides it felt like they was trying to play tug of war with me. So it felt like they was snatching me back and forth." It is no surprise, given this horrific description of what gripper breeds do, that doctors told her mother, Anita Adkinson, this is the worst attack they had ever seen and that the bite injuries resembled shark attack injuries.

The attack began after Ceara's small dog had gotten out of the room where it normally stayed. As she was chasing it down, the female American bulldog, who recently had a litter of puppies, attacked her. The two male bulldogs then joined in. Ceara told the reporter she believed the dogs were trying to kill her and she was right. Kristina, who owned the dogs with her husband, tried to get the dogs off Ceara and was badly bitten. All three bulldogs were put down after the attack.2

We greatly thank Ceara and her sister for sharing her devastating injury photos. It is important for readers to see up close the results of a gripper breed attack, breeds that "repeatedly attack" and when they clamp down, they "hold and shake" that body part, causing extensive soft tissue, deep muscle and bone damaging injuries. Ceara was attacked by three of these dogs; the owner was powerless to stop them. Kristina laying on top of Ceara, sheltering her, undoubtedly saved her life.

Ceara is 18-years old and extremely brave to come forward with her story. She and her sister do not want this to happen to anyone else. They hope their warning message is heeded by others.

Donate to the Severe Dog Attack Victim Ceara Schofield Fund at GoFundMe.com

Ceara Schofield nearly killed by family American bulldogs

1If you missed it in the video, Kristina (or other person) drove them both to the hospital. Ceara describes having to hold her arms up in the car to keep from losing more blood. "Every time my heart would beat," she said, "blood would gush out of my arms." Not even a horror movie could sufficiently depict that drive to the emergency room.
2The elevated risk factor of three gripper breeds in a household, one having just had puppies, is off the charts. All dog breeds in this situation are likely to be more agitated than usual, elevating a "bite" risk scenario. With the gripper breeds, however, we can expect a "mauling" scenario requiring an airlift to a specialized trauma center.

Posted on May 9, 2014 by Colleen Lynn

2014 Dog Bite Fatality: Visiting Child Killed by Pit Bulls Owned by Friends in Felton, Delaware

Family members mourn the loss of Kasii Haith, who was killed in a pit bull attack.

Family Mourns Death archived
UPDATE 05/08/14: Family member gathered at his mother's home in Camden to mourn the child's violent death. The child's maternal grandmother, Tara Haith Coates, said her daughter was visiting a longtime friend and had been outside with her son all day. She had gone inside for a brief trip to the bathroom when the attack occurred, according to Coates. She said her daughter needed 20 stitches from the bite injuries she received while trying to save her son.

"People have been saying awful things," she said. "All I want is respect. Just understand. She was a hell of a mother." - Tara Haith Coates

According to neighbors, the dogs' owners had recently moved into the neighborhood. Just one day before fatally attacking the boy and attacking his mother, the three pit bulls were seen running loose in the area. Gary Bodine, 60, said the dogs went onto the porch of his brother-in-law's home on Tuesday then crossed into the yard of another relative. Bodine's immediate concern was for his 4-year old niece, Addy, who fortunately was safe. He warned his relatives about these dogs.

Cause of Death, Multiple Dog Bites

A Dover Post article states that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ruled the manner of death as being multiple dog bites to the head and neck. The dogs' owner, whose name has not been released, voluntarily surrendered the three pit bulls to Delaware Animal Care and Control (DAC). The dogs were put down Thursday morning, according to DAC Chief Animal Control Officer Capt. Sherri Warburton (The DAC is in charge of animal control throughout the state).

A fourth dog at the attack scene, an 8-week old puppy, was not involved in the attack and remains with its owner, Warburton said. She then stated on the record again that possible inbreeding or territorial factors brought on by one of the female dog's pregnancy led to the attack, despite the boy knowing the dogs well and had already spent hours with them prior to the attack. Warburton summed up her theory by essentially stating that mothers should never go to the bathroom.

The Causal Factor Creep

Multiple millions of dog owning mothers go to the bathroom, make lunch and get dressed in their own bedroom everyday (this list is exhausting). These mothers are "normally" away from their children for brief periods everyday. These family dogs -- spayed and neutered or not, pregnant or not -- are not severely mauling or killing their children. The Causal Factor Creep is used to explain pit bull fatalities as an anticipated response by all dogs when a mother steps away for a moment.

The Delaware State Police continue to investigate. It is too soon to know how long the mother truly was away (the validity of the bathroom story). Because similar stories of a momentary "normal" absence of a mother come up unfailingly in fatal pit bull attacks, and are use by 1.) Animal control and animal welfare groups to displace blame from the pit bull breed and 2.) Pit bull advocates to start vicious rumors about these mothers, we felt it was important to address this issue now.

Do not forget that two grown men with PVC piping and a desperate, adrenalin enhanced mother could not get these pit bulls to stop attacking her son. Thus, a fatality ensued.

05/08/14: Mauling Victims Identified
Delaware State Police have released the names of the young boy killed by three pit bulls on Wednesday and his pregnant mother, who was injured trying to save her son. Kasii Haith, 4-years old, was pronounced dead on scene by first responders. His mother, Kyeisha Haith, 24-years old, was transported to Kent General Hospital for her injuries and is still being treated. Delaware Animal Care and Control confiscated all three pit bulls. None of the dogs were spay or neutered.

Now readers, we are going to have the broken record homespun "pit bull breeding operation" discussion again.

In possibly a "desperate" attempt to displace the blame from the number one killing dog breed, Capt. Sherri Warburton, the director of Delaware Animal Care and Control, chimed in. By doing so, Warburton sheds light on the common practice of many homespun pit bull breeding operations -- "line breeding," also known as interbreeding (breeding mother to son, father to daughter or sibling to sibling, just like all historical and modern pit bull fighting bloodlines are built and maintained).

The two female dogs and one male were all related; none were spayed or neutered. Warburton explained that one of the females was pregnant and the other may have been in heat. That combination of factors could have led to a pack mentality among the dogs...
Warburton said the oldest female is believed to be the mother of the younger female and the male dog involved in the attack.
"I don't have confirmation, but with an intact adult male and a female that is able to come into heat, more than likely that was interbreeding that occurred there," Warburton said. - Mark Eichmann, Newsworks, May 8, 2014

The suggestion that "interbreeding" or lack of spay and neuter were the root causes of this fatal attack or is unusual in pit bull breeding homes (or kennels) is false. Warburton is correct that these factors likely exacerbated and already "off the chart" dangerous scenario for a child visiting the home of a dog owner with three pit bulls, where potential pack mentality is already a given independent of these factors. Note also the many mays, coulds and "I don't have confirmation."1

05/08/14: Three Pit Bulls Kill Child
Felton, DE - Delaware State Police2 say a 4-year old Camden boy was killed by three pit bulls on Wednesday. Police spokesman Master Cpl. Gary Fournier said the attack occurred while the child and his 24-year old mother were "visiting" a friend on Edwardsville Road in Felton. The mother, who is several months pregnant, and her friend were inside the home while her son was outside playing near her friend’s three pit bulls. He had been around the dogs numerous times in the past.

The mother at some point looked out the window and saw her son being attacked by the dogs, according to Cpl. Fournier. She rushed outside to save her son and suffered numerous bite injuries to both arms while intervening. Two HVAC repairmen working at the house also tried to save the boy by beating off the animals with PVC piping and helping the mother defend herself against the attacking dogs. Responding EMS began first aid, but he was soon pronounced dead.

Authorities confiscated all three pit bulls; the young boy's name has not yet been released.

1The maze of denial is being laid, despite the fact that the boy knew the dogs ("had been around the dogs many times before," according to police) and had been with them for hours that day already.
2Delaware has had one recorded fatal dog attack since 2005, the 2012 death of letter carrier Robert Rochester.

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Colleen Lynn

Stephen Elliott and Howard "Rusty" Fox Raise Awareness

Stephen, his partner Rusty, their dog Vargas and Stephen's finger.

Video: Neighborhood Council Meeting
Studio City, CA - Pit bull attack victims, Stephen Elliott and Rusty Fox, continue to try to work with City of Los Angeles officials to address the growing public safety problem posed by pit bulls and other dangerous dogs. Writer Mike Szymanski recently published an account of the violent attack that occurred on Ventura Boulevard on February 16. As a result of the attack, Stephen had part of his finger bitten off as he tried in vain to save his dog Vargas from the jaws of a loose pit bull.

"This was the worst experience of my life. I don’t want this to happen to anyone ever again, and we want to educate people about these dangers." - Stephen Elliott

The below is a recent letter to Studio City Field Deputy, Courtney Hamilton, who works in the North Hollywood Field Office of Councilman Paul Krekorian. Stephen's letter painstakingly details how appallingly victims of dog attacks are treated by the system afterward -- this case specifically involves a dog-on-dog attack resulting in serious injury to the person and the death of their pet -- and how the system fails to hold the owner of the dog and its animal accountable in any way.

Discussion notes by DogsBite about the highlighted portions are located at the end of this post.

04/17/14

Dear Ms. Hamilton,

It was a pleasure meeting you and Councilman Krekorian at the Studio City Neighborhood Council meeting on Wednesday evening. First let me apologize for the ambush at the door, but we were eager to make the City Council aware of the safety issue around pit bulls and have been unsuccessful at finding a responsive channel. As I promised, below is a summary of our experiences and an outline of what we are hoping to accomplish in terms of advancing public safety.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, at around 12:30 PM, we were walking Vargas, our 6-and-a-half month old Yorkie, on the 12000 Block of Ventura Blvd. As we approached the Big Sugar Bakery (12182 Ventura Blvd.), a pit bull came bounding out of Lush Shoes (12188 Ventura Blvd.) and attacked Vargas. This attack was totally without provocation and occurred without any warning. The pit bull exhibited a strong fighting instinct and in our attempts to rescue Vargas, my partner Howard (aka "Rusty"), who was 5-and-a-half weeks post-surgical from an extensive spine surgery, was knocked down onto the street curb, and I had part of my right middle finger bitten off. Vargas' injuries were extensive and exploratory surgery determined that his condition necessitated that he be put down. Although we did recover the severed portion of my finger, the attempt to graft it back on failed and I had to have a formal amputation and finger shortening surgery on March 5th.
The police were called, but by the time they arrived we were on our way to The Studio City Animal Hospital. Immediately upon delivering Vargas to the hospital, I went to the ER at St. Joseph's Hospital; Rusty remained with Vargas. Rusty spoke briefly with the Police and Animal Services by phone. A report was filed by Animal Services. To date, we have not been able to secure a copy of this report, nor have we been able to ascertain any information about a hearing to determine the fate of the attacking pit bull. What we do know is that after a 10 day quarantine in the owner's apartment, the dog is now free to go back out into public spaces. A bystander/witness reported to the police that the pit bull had been muzzled a few minutes prior to attacking Vargas, and had, in fact lunged at another dog in front of Starbucks. We were told that the muzzle was removed at the request of the shoe store owner, as she wanted to play with the pit bull.1
Despite the fact that she was in violation of several City/County ordinances, the owner of the pit bull has not been issued any citations. Also, the owner of the pit bull has no form of liability insurance and has made no effort to reimburse us any of our expenses (which currently total almost $10,000.00). I mention the lack of financial resources and a sense of responsibility not because we are looking for assistance in recouping our expenses, but because it serves to demonstrate that there are deficiencies in current laws regarding the ownership of [dangerous] animals.

Deficiencies in Current Laws and Law Enforcement:

The Los Angeles Leash Law states that any dog taken off of the owner's premises must "be restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding 6 feet in length" and be in the control of a competent person when off property. (LAMC 53.06.2) The dog that attacked and killed Vargas was not in the control of a competent person, as evidenced by the fact she let the dog loose in a store and removed the muzzle (if she muzzled the dog, she must have felt there was a need). The owner was not cited for violation of the Leash Law.

The Leash Law addresses "Infraction/misdemeanor penalty for dog bites" and states that "in addition to the conditions and restrictions imposed on the ownership of potentially dangerous and vicious dogs set forth in this chapter, an owner or custodian of a dog who permits, allows or causes a dog to run, stray or be uncontrolled or at large upon a public street, sidewalk, park or other public property, or in the private property of another person, is guilty of a public offense punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor if such dog bites, attacks or causes injury to any person or to a domestic animal." (LAMC 10.37.180) The owner was not cited for an infraction/misdemeanor penalty for dog bites.

The Leash law states that a leash cannot exceed 6 feet in length, yet 25 feet retractable leashes can be purchased in local stores.

We have witnessed a pit bull in an enclosed sidewalk café (Mexicali Cocina Cantina, 12161 Ventura Blvd.) on Sunday, 04/06/14. This dog was not restrained by the owner, which is in direct violation of the leash law ("the owner must have control of the dog at all times").

Sidewalk adoptions of pit bulls run by Kinder4Rescue in front of CVS Pharmacy (12143 Ventura Blvd.) pedestrians are not warned that they are walking in an area where there may be a potentially dangerous dog; these dogs are frequently taken out of their cages for potential adopters to handle.

There are no laws requiring that the owner of a dog which has been defined as being either "Potentially Dangerous" or "Vicious" carries any form of liability insurance.

Problems We Have Encountered:2

The pit bull that attacked us meets the definition of a Potentially Dangerous Dog (LAMC 10.37.020) sets forth that "any dog which, when unprovoked, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner or custodian of the dog" meets the criteria of being labeled "potentially dangerous." In fact, the attacking dog meets the criteria of being defined as a Vicious Dog. LAMC 10.37.030 states that "any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a person" is defined as vicious. Severe injury is defined in LAMC 10.37.040 as "any physical injury to a human being that results in a major fracture, muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery."
On two occasions, we have been told by City Officials (an Animal Services Officer and by the Deputy Chief of Staff of Councilman Koretz) that my finger having been severed by the pit bull would not carry much, if any weight, in a hearing to determine the labeling and/or fate of the dog that attacked us. Not only does this information that we were given not follow the law as set forth in the LAMC referenced above, but it also is in direct contradiction to the "rescue doctrine" as set forth in the CA Civil Code section 1714(a): "Everyone is responsible, not only for the results of his willful acts, but also for injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the later has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself."
In addressing this issue, the Supreme Court of CA stated: "a person is not contributorily negligent who, with due care, encounters the risk created by the defendant's negligence in order to perform a rescue necessitated by that negligence." (Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc. (1994) 8Cal.4th 532,536-537) Absent entirely reckless conduct, a rescuer is not deemed to have brought the injury upon himself under Civil Code section 1714; provocation does not include the acts of a person attempting to prevent an animal from physically attacking, mauling, or physically injuring by biting another person or animal (County of Sacramento Code of Ordinances, section 8.04.260 Vicious Animal). We were given incorrect information by public officials which would serve to dissuade us from pursuing legal actions.

I have contacted numerous city officials multiple times, including the Mayor's Office, our home district Councilman, Tom LaBonge, and the President of the City Council, Herbert J. Wesson, Jr. None of these officials have responded to my letters and emails.

Lack of follow-up by the LA Department of Animal Services: separate requests made by us and by our attorney for a copy of their report have gone unanswered. We have been told that a hearing will be conducted to determine the fate of the pit bull which attacked us, yet phone calls to ascertain the date of said hearing have gone unanswered.

No follow-up by the Los Angeles County Department of Health: we were told that a report had to be filed with the Department of Health because a dog bite injury occurred during the attack (this was the justification for the 10 day at home quarantine of the pit bull). Information was taken by the Police, by Animal Services, and at the ER, but I have not received any communications from the County Department of Health nor from the Rabies Control Section of the Department of Health.

Proposed Solutions to the Problems Posed by Pit Bulls:

Use the City and County of Denver definition of a Pit Bull as set forth in their 1989 ban on pit bulls: "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds."

A ban on Pit Bulls (The ban in the City and County of Denver could serve as a model) which would ban the future sale, breeding or adoption of pit bulls. Current pit bulls could be grandfathered in if they are currently licensed and if the owner applied for a new, special "Pit Bull License."

A City/County Ordinance that would prima facially label the breed "potentially dangerous," and which would trigger special rules for all pit bull owners, including, but not limited to, requirements that owners obtain a "potentially dangerous breed permit" and a city license on an annual basis; that they provide proof of sterilization and microchipping; prohibitions against invisible fences and tethering to a stationary object; and requirements that owners carry liability insurance.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws.

Enforcement of current laws, including, but not limited to the ones mentioned in the above section of this letter.

This is a brief account of our experiences and what we hope to accomplish by working with the City of Los Angeles to address the growing public safety problem posed by pit bulls and other dangerous animals. Since we were attacked on February 16th, we have heard numerous accounts similar to ours -- some not as severe and some more so -- from fellow Angelinos. I cannot thank you and Councilman Krekorian enough for taking the time to consider our situation and our desire to be of service to our community. If either of you have any questions or require clarification on anything raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. And again, thank you for taking the time to listen to us at the Studio City Neighborhood Council Meeting. It was extremely meaningful to us to know that we have an ear in local government.

Yours truly,

Stephen Elliott and Howard "Rusty" Fox
Contact Stephen: smebd--at--aol.com

Discussion Notes:

What happened to Stephen, Rusty and Vargas can happen to you and your beloved dog at any time and in just about any place, that includes walking down Ventura Boulevard. These attacks occur extremely suddenly and rapid-fire -- the pit bull bolts from its owner's door, snaps its chain, or in this case, charges out of a retail store. As you can see from Stephen's account, victims are often Shit Out of Luck legally and also blamed for the injuries inflicted by the loose attacking dog.

At what point should a victim and his attorney be able to receive a copy of their biting incident report filed by animal services? In just over 60 days, this report was still unavailable to Stephen and his attorney. This is a complaint we hear quite often at DogsBite.org. At maximum, it should be 30 days. This attack resulted in serious bodily injury to Stephen and the brutal death of his dog.
A "10 day quarantine in the owner's apartment," how much more minimizing of this attack is possible? The owner cannot control her dog and irresponsibly allowed her dog to run loose and authorities are perfectly accepting of the idea that she can responsibly quarantine her dog for 10 days and watch for rabies. Not fulfilling this obligation could result in the death of a human being.
Despite the dog owner being woefully guilty of multiple city violations, she was not cited for a single one. Clearly the "deficiencies" of law enforcement are profound in Los Angeles. Further, despite suffering exceptional physical and emotional losses (and $10,000 out of pocket) so far, Stephen and Rusty can't even be comforted by the fact that basic citations were given to the dog's owner.
The lack of citing this dog owner for an infraction/misdemeanor penalty for a dog bite means that this bite was not added to this pit bull's record. A future victim of this dog will not have a paper trail that shows its owner had 100% knowledge of the dog's propensity for viciousness. This "bite" resulted in the amputation of part of Stephen's finger on his right hand and fatal injuries to his dog.
Merely designating an animal that bit off a human body part "Potentially Dangerous" is obscene. This was an attack by an out of control, unleashed dog that occurred in a highly public setting. The severe injury inflicted by this violent dog in this public setting should qualify for a "Dangerous" or "Vicious" designation, which carries far more legal weight and ramifications for the dog's owner.
As stated in the video, Stephen was horrified to learn that because he tried to save his dog from a vicious attack by a loose pit bull, suffering a maiming injury is his fault. He should have just stood there and watched as the pit bull ripped his dog to shreds and his partner, knocked to curb, was virtually helpless with a serious back injury. What if his partner had been the pit bull's next victim?
This "blame the victim" routine also appears to be false in the State of California ("we were given incorrect information by public officials which would serve to dissuade us from pursuing legal actions").3 Stephen and Rusty do not have a civil case to pursue because the "drum roll" pit bull owner is judgment proof, though she still has enough stashed away to shop at Lush Shoes.
Numbers 2-4 in the section, Problems We Have Encountered, are further disturbing. The lack of response by city representatives, lack of follow-up by the LA Department of Animal Services and total absence of follow up by the LA County Department of Health and the Rabies Control Section. How many hundreds of other dog attack victims have experienced the exact same response?
Just after submitting their letter, Stephen and Rusty learned that California state law only allows breed-specific ordinances that regulate the spay/neuter status of a breed. This modest expansion was added in 2005 and allowed San Francisco to adopt the first mandatory pit bull sterilization law. The original, all-encompassing, anti-BSL state law was passed in 1989 (SB 428, Torres).

1Among many "fashionable" shoes, Lush also sells shoes that we imagine many pit bull owners would kill for.
2Some of the cited municipal code is Los Angeles County code instead of Los Angeles City code. Because the city failed to provide Stephen and Rusty with any information about their rights or future proceedings, they were forced to do research on their own. It is overwhelming to be an attack victim, much less having to also put on a legal hat that requires knowledge of city, county and state dog bite laws and how these laws intertwine.
3California has progressive civil and criminal dog laws compared to many other states. An overwhelming number of jurisdictions across the U.S. have no animal-on-animal attack laws at all. We have certainly heard from victims in other states that they have been told the same thing: "It is your fault you were injured; you intervened in a dog fight."

Photos and video: Mike Szymanski

DogsBite blog ::

The Plight of a Mauled Postal Carrier, an Attempt to Sue Animal Control and the Progression of a Criminal

A Special Tribute to Connecticut In Honor of National Dog Bite Prevention Week 2014

Family Dog Attack: 'Gripper' Breed Pack Attack Leads to Devastating Near Fatal Injuries

2014 Dog Bite Fatality: Visiting Child Killed by Pit Bulls Owned by Friends in Felton, Delaware

Letter: After Pit Bull Kills Dog and Maims Man, Victims Seek to Advance Public Safety in Los Angeles

Stephen Elliott and Howard "Rusty" Fox Raise Awareness