Another pit bull victim

Reply

  #41  
Old 04-20-13, 10:39 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
The LINK will take you to an article with an imbedded video of a pit bull attack.

Its important to note that this dog was not threatened, provoked or "protecting its family". The dog zeroed in on a little girl walking down the street with her grandmother. It ran across an intersection to get at the child. Also notice how difficult it was for 3 grown men to get the dog off the girl. All the time that they were punching, kicking and pulling on the dog it never lost its focus on its helpless victim.
 
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 04-20-13, 10:41 AM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
Check your local ordinances here.


eCode360 Library | General Code
 
  #43  
Old 04-21-13, 07:27 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440


Refocus and redirect your attentions on this matter. We are a society that is reactive to all major events and not proactive before any major event happens. Take your attention off local authorities and focus them on the legislative authorities with in your city, county and state.

One method is to do your research. Find out how many viscous dog attacks have taken place over the last 5 to 10 or more years within each jurisdiction with in your city, county and state. Then determine what preventative actions if any, the elected leaders have taken to prevent future events. This places the blame where it belongs. On the governmental agencies that have jurisdictions over such events.

Local authorities can only enforce laws and or rules presently on the books. Local authorities are reactive and not proactive. They respond to events after the fact. If there are pre-existing laws, rules and or codes already on the books they then have to enforce them. This puts the heat and pressures where it really belongs. On the elected officials whom may have failed to do their jobs in the past when vicious dog attacks have then place.

Research on the matter can be done by any law student at a local college or university where law is taught. Worth a few hundred bucks to most any law student already buried in college tuition debit... Far less expensive then lawyer research fees too....

There could be many alternatives to the above suggestions. Pros and or cons, etc. etc. etc. However, facts speak loudly in court and the media when elected leaders are the ones on the HOT seat....

My Two Cents....
 
  #44  
Old 04-21-13, 07:53 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440


I found another TWO CENTS....

Be proactive. Inquire if your health and homeowners insurances cover viscous dog attacks before any happen. Both insurance companies will know what the existing laws are also. They can inform you what is covered, based upon whatever the circumstances happen to be. On your property and or off your property. And how they will respond in your aid and favor plus actions they can and/or will taken against the dog owner(s).

Some jurisdictions require special homeowners insurance coverages for vicious dogs while other insurance companies will not offer insurance coverages to home owners as a result of some dog breeds, etc. Plenty of variations to explore. Be proactive before any event happens. Let's hope no dog attack happens too! Good Luck.



Spent All Of My Pennies.....
 
  #45  
Old 04-21-13, 09:04 AM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
Some jurisdictions require special homeowners insurance coverages for vicious dogs
Tom the trouble is getting the dog labeled as visious or potentially dangerous. The only way for that to happen is if a human gets bit or a domestic animal is killed. A chicken is not a domestic animal as the ordinance read.....

I need a horse, cat, dog, goat and such that gets killed by this said dog for that labeling to occur.
 
  #46  
Old 04-21-13, 10:31 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,188
Mike - What does your town ordinances say about livestock? If you live in a right to farm area, protection of farm animals should be mentioned in some ordinance.

It must really suck to have a neighbor like that.
 
  #47  
Old 04-21-13, 11:49 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,349
In my area a person has the right to use deadly force to protect their livestock. ANY animal coming onto your property that intends to harm your stock can be killed.
 
  #48  
Old 04-22-13, 05:52 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
Mike, did animal control say the chicken is not a domestic animal?

If not, I would consider the chicken a domestic animal. It is domesticated. The same way dogs, cats, goats, horses, cows, and pigs are. List of domesticated animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When do you meet with the lawyer?
 
  #49  
Old 04-22-13, 06:03 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
Here you go Mike:

From the NJSA

"4:19-8. Failure to kill dog found worrying livestock, penalty
4:19-8. An owner or person harboring a dog which is found killing, worrying or wounding any sheep, lamb, domestic animal or poultry, who shall, after being informed thereof, fail to kill the dog within twenty-four hours after receiving such information, shall be liable, to any person who shall sue for the same, to a penalty of ten dollars ($10.00), to be recovered with costs by a civil action before the Superior Court and shall also pay triple damages for any injury done. "

"4:19-9. Right to destroy offending dogs
A person may humanely destroy a dog in self defense, or which is found chasing, worrying, wounding or destroying any sheep, lamb, poultry or domestic animal."
 
  #50  
Old 04-22-13, 06:04 AM
Sharp Advice's Avatar
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: The Shake and Bake State USA
Posts: 10,440
Hi: Larry

You're correct. Action taken after the fact and not before. Reactive and not proactive.

Your job then is to research past vicious dog attacks, gather all the facts, news reports etc. and present them to city council at one of the meetings. Laying the foundation for any future event likely to happen with neighbors dog or any such in your local area. Document everything.

Should a tragic event happen, the facts will be on your side. All past research, ground work building a case, will already be done, your attending a meeting and requesting something be done prior is being proactive and not reactive. Then you can say "See" I told you so. Your lack (City failure to act before not after) was the cause. And sue the city as well....

I need a horse, cat, dog, goat and such that gets killed by this said dog for that labeling to occur.
I guess your only other option should the above suggestions not be to your liking, is to begin shopping for a few domestic pets and/or farm animals.... A good quality photo and/or video camera to document the evidence after an attack would be good to have also. Pictures say a thousand words in a court of law....

Electrified fence???? Around the farm animal enclosure? Barbed Wire??? Legal in your area???

Good Luck...

Cheers....
 
  #51  
Old 04-22-13, 03:42 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
I found this is all. I would guess I need to file an actual 1 st complaint. Then the second time should be a charm.

Nuisance restrictions. No person shall own, keep, harbor or permit any dog to annoy neighbors or other persons living within the immediate vicinity of the Township by loud, frequent or habitual continuous barking, howling, or yelping for a period of more than 20 continuous minutes between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or for a period of more than 15 continuous minutes between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. "Continuous" is defined as uninterrupted, unbroken, not intermittent or occasional, so persistently repeated at short intervals as to constitute virtually an unbroken series. No dog owner shall permit his dog to trespass upon the property of any other persons in the Township nor suffer or permit his dog to damage shrubbery, flowers, gardens or any other property of any kind or character belonging to any neighbor or other person in the Township.
[Amended 12-16-2003 by Ord. No. 0-03-40]

The red above I would take it as my chickens are any other property of any kind or character belonging to any neighbor or other person in the Township.


D. Complaints. In any proceeding before the Township Judge upon a complaint duly made and filed in the Municipal Court, if the Court shall find that the dog in question has committed the prohibited acts alleged in the complaint, then there shall be a presumption that the defendant owner, possessor or harborer has suffered or permitted said dog to commit the prohibited acts alleged in the complaint, and it shall not be necessary that the complainant prove the defendant's knowledge, intention or scienter; provided, however, that it shall appear in such proceeding that the complainant has on at least one other previous occasion lodged a complaint with the Township Police Department charging the same defendant with the same offense and that the defendant had notice of such previous complaint.
 
  #52  
Old 04-22-13, 04:23 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
So what are the penalties for breaking that ordinance?
 
  #53  
Old 04-22-13, 04:47 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
Penalties from what I see.



A. Any person who violates or fails or refuses to comply with this article shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $150 nor more than $500 for each and every offense, except that for the first offense or failure to secure a license, the penalty shall not be less than $10 and not more than $50.
[Amended 12-18-2007 by Ord. No. 0-07-56; 12-15-2009 by Ord. No. 0-09-59]
B. For violation of 57-7E(2), the maximum penalty upon conviction of such violation shall be a fine not to exceed the sum of $100 for a first offense and, for a second offense, a fine of not in excess of $200 and, for any subsequent offense, a fine not in excess of $450 or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both.
C. Each and every violation of this article shall be regarded as a separate violation even if such violation shall have occurred on the same day and may be subject to separate penalty
.
 
  #54  
Old 04-22-13, 04:50 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
I need to get the dog labeled as such to do any good. Which is this N.J.S.A. 4:19-17

The owner or other person having custody and control of a dog which has been declared to be vicious or potentially dangerous by the Municipal Court of the Township of Howell or another court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:19-17 et seq., shall comply with the provisions of any order entered by the Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:19-24.
 
  #55  
Old 04-22-13, 05:27 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
Here is to potentially dangerous dog thing in NJ... I am trying to find if a chicken is a domestic animal as listed in the ordinance.

4:19-23. Finding to declare dog potentially dangerous

a. The municipal court shall declare a dog to be potentially dangerous if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the dog:

(1) caused bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person during an unprovoked attack, and poses a serious threat of bodily injury or death to a person, or

(2) severely injured or killed another domestic animal, and

(a) poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person; or

(b) poses a threat of death to another domestic animal, or

(3) has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals.

b. A dog shall not be declared potentially dangerous for:

(1) causing bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person if the dog was provoked, or

(2) severely injuring or killing a domestic animal if the domestic animal was the aggressor.

For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked.

 
  #56  
Old 04-22-13, 06:02 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
Here is where is says poultry is not a domestic animal. But the loop hole may be in my post #51


4:19-18. Definitions

As used in this act:

"Animal control officer" means a certified municipal animal control officer or, in the absence of such an officer, the chief law enforcement officer of the municipality or his designee.

"Department" means the Department of Health.

"Dog" means any dog or dog hybrid.

"Domestic animal" means any cat, dog, or livestock other than poultry.

"Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog or dog hybrid declared potentially dangerous by a municipal court pursuant to section 7 of P.L.1989, c. 307 (C. 4:19-23).

"Vicious dog" means any dog or dog hybrid declared vicious by a municipal court pursuant to section 6 of P.L.1989, c. 307 (C. 4:19-22).

CREDIT(S)

L.1989, c. 307, 2, eff. Jan. 12, 1990. Amended by L.1994, c. 187, 1.



4:19-19. Seizure and impoundment of dog by animal control officer; grounds

An animal control officer shall seize and impound a dog when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the dog:

a. attacked a person and caused death or serious bodily injury as defined in N.J.S. 2C:11-1(b) to that person;

b. caused bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person during an unprovoked attack and poses a serious threat of harm to persons or domestic animals;

c. engaged in dog fighting activities as described in R.S.4:22-24 and R.S.4:22-26; or

d. has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals.

The dog shall be impounded until the final disposition as to whether the dog is vicious or potentially dangerous. Subject to the approval of the municipal health officer, the dog may be impounded in a facility or other structure agreeable to the owner.
 
  #57  
Old 04-22-13, 06:56 PM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
That is weird to me that poultry is somehow excluded from the definition. I wonder what the reasoning is.
 
  #58  
Old 04-22-13, 07:00 PM
lawrosa's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,607
That is weird to me that poultry is somehow excluded from the definition. I wonder what the reasoning is.
I would think because Howell was a poultry community( 1950's ???) and it was common place for chickens to suffer injury's from this type of thing.........
 
  #59  
Old 04-23-13, 05:12 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,940
That would make me think it would make more sense to include chickens to protect them.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.