Woman sues owners of dog killed by her pit bulls

There are some serious clues- like the county labeled them dangerous animals and put restrictions on their activities.

If we can't make any judgements based without personal , direct and conclusive observations, then it's going to be mighty quiet here.

As to getting it right in court cases, mostly humans do the best they can. And make rules to help to that end. What alternative is there?

__________________
For we used to ask when we were little, thinking that the old men knew all things which are on earth: yet forsooth they did not know; but we do not contradict them, for neither do we know.

maybe she hired one of those lawyers that sues people for crop seeds spreading to other people's fields.

sheesh, I feel bad for the family being sued.

but, the stuff in the article about local laws requiring signs and fencing, etc. seems like too much big brother to me too. that has to kill the real estate values for neighbors. seems like liability for vicious animals should fall on the owners period without all that regulation. if your animals (any type) gets loose and trespasses on other's property and causes damage or injury--it was your animal, it's your mess to set right. end of story.

that's what would fix the problem. it would reinforce that with our rights of personal freedoms comes personal liability. that's how people are deterred into managing their own choices, not by the government requiring signs, insurance, fencing, etc.

but, I fear that's not the country we live in anymore. we've now become the USSA.

on the plus side, the family's children are going to learn from first hand experience how crazy and worthless our justice system is on so many levels. that will only help take them out of the propaganda fold, and into the "my eyes are wide open fold". very sad way to accomplish that, but at least maybe it's a life lesson that will spare them from shock in other things when they're adults.

too many sheeple walk around in denial, then if they open their eyes they stumble around in shock. someday enough of us will get past that to be ready to embrace reai opportunities for positive change and stopping all this insanity.

on a side note, we've been sued a few of times, by absolute nut jobs (one time was even blood relatives). by God's grace, we came out winners in the end, though not unscathed emotionally or financially by the experience. so, I can relate to the whole "I can't believe this is happening". the court system will never get better until there are real penalties to those who bring frivolous, baseless lawsuits against others.

too funny, this story is about to be talked about on the fox news channel bret baier show

Well, she got her 15 minutes of fame.

My husband and I have been super paranoid about our "on-line footprint" for years. A lot of our friends don't agree at all. I don't use facebook or any social media. DH has a facebook account only and uses it rarely, has all the highest privacy settings and no photos on it. He doesn't really even look at except for a few times a year. He has a few other on-line things he's used for professionals networking for jobs.

Anyway, I love geneology and work on it for fun with my dad and aunt (who are very serious about it).

I don't want anything around that would be shameful or embarrassing or just make us seem like mindless idiots that could be misinterpreted by my descendants if they do geneology work on us in the future.

I always wonder what it will be like in 50 or 100 years. Now "googling" info on our ancestors usually only generates official records, which is fine. We love it when we can find some personal info on the ancestors.

Don't you think our descendants will think we were all mindless idiots in the future when they google relatives from our time in history and find all the junk that people have put all over the internet themselves. Plus, all the "15 minutes of famers" like this lady?

She's claiming that the beagle caused her wounds. But if you look at the pictures, I'd come more near thinking that her own dogs caused them.

Think about it: pit bulls go into a frenzy when they're fighting. I've seen them so agitated that a 2x4 upside their head didn't faze them.

Frankly, I don't see how she could distinguish which dog caused the scratches/bruises. And even if the beagle did it, who could fault him? The poor thing was fighting for his life, I imagine he could have thought that she was attacking him, too.

In short, the woman and her lawyer are idiots IMO. And I'm so glad they're getting national attention.

She's also claiming the beagle came into her yard first.
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/fr...95ef69eff.html

I've met a lot of sick people in my life but this woman takes the cake.

That actually has no bearing on the case, IMO. The beagle was in her own yard being attacked by this woman's dogs. She went to get her dogs and she claims she was attacked by the beagle. Realistically, it is possible she was bitten by the beagle as the beagle was being slaughtered by her dogs but if it was one bite on her hand, that would have been about it. She would not have been bitten multiple times as she had been. This woman is truly delusional!

I am all for pitbulls but this lady is not right in her actions. She should accept all responsibility. She needs to accept the actions to be taken for being a bad pet parent.


People shouldn't own pitbulls if they can't control them and don't have the knowledge to be leader to the breed. When one gets mad they all turn into a pack mentality. Also most owners don't fully socialize them with people and animals. And that is a MUST with this breed. DONT LET IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS RUIN THE BREED. They are an amazing breed. I love my fur babies.

Attached Images

1416402659781.jpg (42.0 KB, 0 views)

That woman is lucky. If it were my dog being attacked, I'd have attacked HER myself!

Fixed it.

It's really not the breed. It's stupid owners who think the latest "big mean dog" is the best thing out there and who use the breed to make themselves look good, in their misguided opinion.

I've seen it happen with Dobermans, St Bernards, Rotwiellers, German Shepherds, etc. Big scary dogs are a status symbol to some and those people should not be allowed to have dogs, period.

BTW, yours look very content and happy.

Thank you.

And just as I suspected, from an update in the news:

She must be delusional, to think that these details wouldn't come out as a result of her lawsuit. And the same goes for her 'attorney'.

Did anyone google the addresses in the lawsuit and see the street view??

Both parties involved in this live in rat hole homes. Maybe that's not a fair statement about the defendants home since it does look a little better, but both homes are about a 1/2 step up from what you'd find in a run down trailer park.

And what does that have to do with anything?

If nothing else, it probably means they can't afford the insurance and the fencing that would be required to keep these dogs