Police: Dog bites man; man stabs dog (pit bull), charged with aggravated cruelty to animals.

[uppityperson]

Man plays music. Dog barks. Man chokes dog. Dog bites man. Man stabs dog. Man arrested for aggravated cruelty to animals.

Not quite a Darwin award winner, but one to watch.

http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x522012285/Police-Dog-bites-man-man-stabs-dog

A Utica man faces a felony charge after Utica police say he stabbed a pit bull several times in the mouth area. Brenton Browne, 26, was charged with aggravated cruelty to animals, police said Thursday.

Browne was charged after police responded to a Gray Avenue residence Monday regarding an animal cruelty complaint, and said the incident started when the dog would not stop barking because of music that was being played loudly.

The suspect then started choking the dog, which then bit him, police said.

The dog’s owner then took his pet to another room of the house, where the suspect allegedly stabbed the pit bull...

Not quite an accurate headline, but there it is. I don't wonder why they wrote it that way as didn't it lure all of us in to reading the article?

[montanto]

1. Attempting to choke a pitbull

is the craziest thing I've ever heard of. I don't think it can be done successfully unless its a teacup pitbull.

[Javaman]

26. Exactly, it's like trying to choke a tree.

there is a lot of stupid in this story.

[sui generis]

2. well. this is one case in which somebody like me should NOT be licensed

to carry a gun. Gun laws were made for people like me.

If some dickhead attacked my pit bull with a knife it would take me a lot longer to maim them than if I had a gun, and I'd enjoy doing it.

damn skippy I ain't kidding.

[lapislzi]

3. Slightly off-topic, but I am curious

(and likely to start some sort of flame war, for which I apologize in advance)

Why do we not refer to these animals by their actual breed name? They are American Staffordshire Bull Terriers. It takes some of the inflammatory connotation out of the name, and may permit more reasoned discussion.

[uppityperson]

4. It won't sell as many newspapers or get people to watch air time

it lacks that sexy "OMG" factor. I know. I do know.

[lapislzi]

6. I know that, too. Sigh.

I've known some cream puffs and some that would take your arm off in a nanosecond. It ain't all genetics, and it ain't all nurture.

What I don't understand is why this breed remains so wildly popular. Especially when every time I visit the humane society to donate food, blankets and newspapers, 75% of the shelter dogs are this breed, or crossed with this breed.

[uppityperson]

5. Odd how many recs and replies animal cruelty posts typically get.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. That pit bull should be put to death

Any dog, especially a pit bull, should be put to death if it bites a human.

[ret5hd]

8. uh huh, sure.

:silly:

[Cali_Democrat]

10. I have there have been enough deaths at the hands of pitbulls.

I'm tired of it.

[NeedleCast]

16. This man tortured the dog

You can't be serious.

This man played music at excessive volume which is akin to torturing a dog, then attempted to choke it when it started to bark. The dog defended itself.

[Touchdown]

50. Loud music? Too fucking bad for the dog!

I'm all for living in a society and learning to get along, and put up with annoyances of city life, but I refuse to curtail my freedoms for somebody else's pet. If the animal is being tortured by a stereo, then the owner is the cruel one for making him live in the city.

[sui generis]

19. and there have been enough hysterical people talking about dangerous breeds

I'm rrully tard of it.

Seriously, we should be required to take an IQ test to drink, drive, bear arms, vote, and have pets, not all concurrently of course.

The world would be a much better, less violent place if we just had some damn standards.

[CBR]

11. What shall we do with the humans that choke dogs?

Dogs do have the right to defend themselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Dogs don't have the same rights humans have

They shouldn't be allowed to bite no matter what.

Also, humans that abuse dogs should be charged with cruelty to animals.

[CBR]

13. Well if someone chokes my dog, I hope he bites the shit out of them. nt

[sui generis]

17. and he'd better hope my pit bull euthanizes him before I do.

My goofy dog is a big old super sensitive slobbery love sponge who probably wouldn't bite back.

I'd rip that fuckers ears off and stuff them up his ass so he could hear me kicking his ass over and over again. And my doggie knows his human will protect him.

[Cali_Democrat]

41. You think someone should be killed (euthanized in your words) for choking a dog?

Where are your priorities? :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Where are yours?

:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

47. You seem to think that dogs that bite people should escape punishment

I disagree.

They should be punished, especially if they are pit bulls.

I've seen one too many dog attacks on humans in my life. I have no sympathy for dogs that bite.

Sorry.

We can agree to disagree.

[flvegan]

48. "especially pit bulls"

I love the smell of media hyped prejudice this time of day.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. Pit bulls tend to do more violent damage to people than other dogs.

That's why I said pit bulls.

[flvegan]

51. They do?

Got anything other than opinion to back that up?

*giggle*

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Here....

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite

pit bulls along with rottweilers accounted for 67% of dog bite deaths in a 1 year period.

So I should probably add rottweilers to the list of dogs that we should have zero tolerance for.

[flvegan]

55. Long debunked.

Both the CDC and the Clifton report are laughable excuses of media mining for data. For the love of God, read citations after Googling, will you please.

Care to try again?

[Cali_Democrat]

58. You don't have to believe the data if you don't want to

Cover your eyes because you don't like the truth in front of your face.

[flvegan]

60. What truth?

The CDC and the HSUS came out a long time ago and said their data was shit. The Clifton Report is the most scoffed at "release" in the world of dogs, compiled the same way. These "reports" are little more than watching DU for dog bite stories and compiling data from them and calling it fact.

Fucking laughable that folks, when faced with the fact they've pulled a shit source to back up their side, can't face up to it.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. The CDC said their data was shit?

Link or it didn't happen.

Happy searching :hi:

[uppityperson]

67. Here are links. Let's see yours.

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/about-cdc-bite-stats/

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm

Here are some quotes from the CDC and Doctors involved in the studies explaining how the report is INACCURATE:

*

Procedure: We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000).
*

Ideally, breed-specific bite rates would be calculated to compare breeds and quantify the relative dangerousness of each breed. For example, 10 fatal attacks by Breed X relative to a population of 10,000 X’s (1/1,000) implies a greater risk than 100 attacks by Breed Y relative
to a population of 1,000,000 Y’s (0.1/1,000). Without consideration of the population sizes, Breed Y would be perceived to be the more dangerous breed on the basis of the number of fatalities. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000). NOTE: The CDC study does NOT use population as a factor.
*

Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities, because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy
than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)
*

Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)
*

(after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value) (Pit Bulls in the City, Indy Tails July 2005) (more@link)

[flvegan]

70. When did you get faster than me at this?

*pouts*

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

73. sorry, am being uppity today, first turn it over to you and they don't.

sowwy

[Cali_Democrat]

74. LOL

That website is bunk

HAHA!

[flvegan]

77. .

Wrong spot.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. Biased website in favor of pitbulls

That's like linking to Fox News if you want to find criticism on a Republicans. It's full of shit.

[flvegan]

75. Didn't you link to a dogbite attorney ambulance chaser site?

:rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

78. The website he linked

nopitbullbans.com

even more :rofl:

[uppityperson]

76. It gives links and presents the cdc data. Where is the "shit" it is full of?

[Cali_Democrat]

80. Your friend said CDC data is full of shit

Look up this thread

:rofl:

HAHAHAHA!!!

You two are clowns.

[flvegan]

82. Did you get that JAVMA archive open yet?

[uppityperson]

83. And I gave a link where the cdc says their "data" has problems.

Perhaps you should read it rather than just assume.

[Cali_Democrat]

84. Tell your buddy that up the thread

He questioned the validitiy of CDC data.

[uppityperson]

85. So does the CDC, that is what that link is talking about.

The cdc said their data is flawed.

Keep up.

[uppityperson]

86. Suddenly, silence reigns.

[Cali_Democrat]

87. I was actually reading the websites

Sorry but they are not credible sources IMO.

[uppityperson]

88. Yup, cdc is not credible to say their data has problems. Gotcha. Thanks for being so straightforward

about your prejudices. Wish you were more open minded. CDC's data is valid, but CDC saying their data is flawed is not valid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8802669&mesg_id=8805144

[Cali_Democrat]

89. I don't think you are the website are interpreting it correctly.

Of course there are some outstanding issues any time specific numbers are posted. But the general conclusion made by the CDC initially that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds still holds true.

[uppityperson]

90. Even though the CDC said that is a false conclusion, you maintain it still is

since the CDC didn't interpret their data correctly to say it was flawed.

Oh. Kay.

[Cali_Democrat]

91. Data can be interpreted in different ways, but the main point is that pitt bulls are more dangerous

The conclusion is still accurate considering the data. Read it for yourself.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand.

Look. You can entertain me on this thread all day if you like, but I have a life so maybe you and your buddy can conversate or something.

We can agree to disagree.

Peace.

[flvegan]

69. Don't need to search

You'll want access to the JAVMA archive, and you'll want to peruse Vol 217, Number 6. Have fun.

[uppityperson]

72. more

http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/protecting-animals/PA-resources-pit-bull-myths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

[uppityperson]

59. Hi, up to you, I have little tolerance today.

And, for those who call this a bouncy, it doesn't start with "so". sorry

[Cali_Democrat]

64. Some people can't handle truth and cover their eyes.

You fit the bill.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Also note from the article...

"It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities"

So they do tend to kill more than other dogs.

So if there was a pit bull and a lab in front of me I would probably point to the pit bull as being more of a danger.

[flvegan]

63. You're cracking me up.

Do, please keep going.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. With what?

You're the one with no evidence at all to back up your claims.

[uppityperson]

52. and....he's off!

Link to that assertion and no, don't say "well they are the most reported so they MUST be the most violent".

Thank you for making your prejudice clear. Sincerely, thank you. Are you ready to learn or are you happy having that prejudice?

[Cali_Democrat]

54. I would assume that most dog bite deaths are reported.

Yes I did search the net for the info. I don't keep it available at all times :hi:

[uppityperson]

57. that is your first problem. Don't assume they are, or that they are at all correctly

reported. Don't assume the OMGmedia reports all of them or at all correctly either.

[Cali_Democrat]

61. Of the reported dog bite deaths, pit bulls and rotweilers account for 67% in 1 year

Using common sense, I would think not all dog ATTACKS are reported. But almost all dog attack DEATHS are reported. When a death certificate is filled out for someone the cause of death is written on it. Also, a lot of times an autopsy is performed and a cause of death is determined if it is a mystery.

So how many dog attack deaths do you think go unreported? Now very many because the cause of death is determined by proper authorities in most cases.

[uppityperson]

66. link to that assertion. I can pull numbers out of the air also.

You said all dog attacks are reported. They aren't.

I would like to see a list of death certificates that report, accurately, the type of dog that killed the person. You must have, since you are so adamant that they prove something about pit bulls and rotts. Or are you using reports in the media for that assumption?

Did you know many vets (yes, those doctors who work with animals including pets, including dogs) have difficulty correctly identifying a "pit bull"?

[Cali_Democrat]

68. I didn't pull numbers out of the air

I didn't say all dog attacks are reported. I said almost all dog deaths are likely reported. Big difference. If a dog attacks somebody, a lot times it does unreported. But if a dog kills someone, it is almost always reported because a cause of death needs to be written on the persons death cerificate.

I linked to actual data.

You should try it some time, but you can't because you have nothing to back up what you say.

LOL.


Here's the info:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite

Hardly out of thin air :hi:

[flvegan]

79. Where did that "data" come from?

[uppityperson]

81. I misread the "deaths". Biased website prejudiced against pit bulls.

As a dear friend of mine has written "That's like linking to Fox News if you want to find criticism on a Republicans. It's full of shit."


Here is some "actual data" as opposed to poor logic sites.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8802669&mesg_id=8805144

[joeybee12]

34. What absolute bullshit...any creature has an instinct for survival...

...when threatened with either death or severe harm, this dog did what any dog or animal would do...you really need to rethink what you're posting because if you really believe what you just posted, it's absolutely sickening.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. There is nothing sickening about what I posted

Dogs do not have the rights of humans nor should they.

Just because they have an instinct for survival, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to bite in some circumstances.

They should NEVER be allowed to bite. And if they do, the owner and dog should be held accountable.

[uppityperson]

14. Indeed, next time someone tries to choke it to death, it might bite again!!! OMG!!11111111111111

[geek tragedy]

15. ANY animal will defend itself if another animal attacks it.

The human here initiated the aggression. Should we put him to death?

[superduperfarleft]

18. Are you kidding me?

This asshole was abusing the dog, the dog reacts accordingly, and you advocate putting the dog to death? Jesus fucking christ...words fail me.

[sui generis]

20. I think the human should be put to death. As long as we're making preposterous statements.

You DO know you're on a progressive website right?

[Cali_Democrat]

21. I'm sorry...who was the Republican and who was the Democrat?

What was the dog and the human's political affiliation?

What the hell does that have anything to do with it?

This is not a poltical story.

[sui generis]

22. yeah but one of the qualifications of being progressive is that you have compassion

for the helpless.

The human that attacked the dog was not in that category.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Exactly...my concern is for the people that are attacked by pitbulls...it happens a lot

And there have been many helpless people attacked by pitbulls

Pitbulls typically have less self-control than humans so they should be held to a different standard.

They are animals after all.

[superduperfarleft]

25. Does that different standard include punishing them for trying to fight off an abuser? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

29. I just feel like there should be zero tolerance for pit bull bites.

nt

[superduperfarleft]

35. So you're essentially excusing the guy who choked and stabbed his dog.

I don't care if it was a pit bull or a fucking cat, if you choke an animal, you're probably going to be bitten or scratched. And yet you want to punish the animal for a defense mechanism. This just gets dumber and dumber.

[Javaman]

28. The man choked the dog first. Who has lack of self control?

you rank high on the epic fail meter.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Thanks. n/t

[Javaman]

43. I'm glad you recognize your short comings. nt

[sui generis]

31. I think humans are quantifiably worse than animals

when it comes to who causes more harm to whom.

[flvegan]

23. (facepalm)

Just when you think you've read it all...

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Incredible, eh?

:banghead:

[Javaman]

27. For barking? The dog barked, he choked it, the dog did what any dog does..

tried to defend itself. ergo with it's teeth.

[joeybee12]

33. Sorry, but if a man chokes a dog, the dog should bite back...

not at all hard to understand.

[superduperfarleft]

36. "not at all hard to understand." Yeah, you would think n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

37. And it's not that hard to understand that dogs should be put to sleep for biting

Some think it should only apply to certain circumstances. I think it should apply to all cases.

We have a difference of opinion.

[superduperfarleft]

38. So at what point would it become acceptable for an animal to defend himself?

After choking? After stabbing? Maybe burning them with a blowtorch? What level of an attack should an animal put up with before it would become acceptable to nip the asshole that's doing it?

[uppityperson]

39. probably never if it is labeled a "pit bull". Bunnies are cute an fluffy,

omgpitbulls are just plain dangerous. See? :sarcasm:

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Animals should never be in that situation in the first place

But if they do bite, they should be held accountable along with the owner.

Owners should be looking after their animals in all cases.

[Javaman]

92. the man attacked the dog.

How is the dog, acting quite normally to being attacked, to be held accountable?

Someone punches me, I punch back, however, as a human, I can say, "I won't punch back", but a dog doesn't have the power of reason, so again, how is the dog to be held responsible by acting quite normal to being attacked by a human?

You really have a slanted sense of reality.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. -1

:wtf:

[NeedleCast]

9. People who play loud music near dogs are dicks

I was at ArtScape in Baltimore last weekend and saw several people who had taken their dogs with them. They'd take the dogs withing a few yards of the stages where bands were playing on main stages with heavy amplicification. Dogs can't handle that kind of volume.

[ceile]

32. Agreed

There's a dive bar down the street from my house that plays live music. It's about 800 sqft. so the music is LOUD. The last time I was there, someone brought their dog. That poor thing had his leash stretched as far it would go and just kept staring at the door. Mad me so mad- my fiance had to stop me from confronting his owner.