Tuesday, July 17, 2012

part two: of pit bulls and morons and sheep

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.” ― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

ROZSA'S version of the events are as follows, his dogs dug out from under his fence while he was cleaning up after a storm. his dogs found their way onto a neighbor's property and as luck would have it, at the exact moment that his neighbor was discovering his dead sheep that were killed by either the mountain lion or coyotes that were seen in the area the day before. the sheep owner erroneously assumed ROZSA'S pit bulls were responsible for the slaughter of his sheep, because the sheep owner, like the rest of us, was exercising hateful ignorant stereotyping behavior towards poor misunderstood wiggle butts. the sheep owner went inside, retrieved his shotgun and killed ROZSA'S two scapegoats. it is surprising that ROZSA did not try to put forth a defense that his highly trained certified therapy canine good citizens were simply trying to SAVE the sheep from the native predators.

ROZSA told me that he was sued by the sheep owner and that he in turn filed a counter claim against the sheep owner for the wrongful deaths of his dogs. ROZSA stated "I proved in Court that he was lying, that my Certified Therapy and Canine Good Citizen dogs were not the culprits. Coyotes and a mountain lion were seen in his backyard just the day before this incident." apparently in ROZSA'S fantasy world, rumors of rare predators seen in the area meets a greater burden of proof than being caught in the act of committing the crime. ROZSA warned me of the dangers of stereotyping dogs and then explained that he had "dedicated hundreds of hours of training and thousands of dollars learning how to train dogs. I treated them kindly, like I would treat any animal or person." my interpretation is that his exemplary treatment of his dogs should be viewed as proof of their innocence, because everyone KNOWS that only abused and neglected pit bulls and those trained to be aggressive were in fact guilty of aggression. in spite of the fact that mountain lions are extremely rare in alabama (the state claims there are none) ROZSA insists on clinging to this alternative reality. even if there were documented cases of cougars in alabama, they typically hunt at night and would eat what they kill. the coyote on the other hand, is a hunter of small animals and unlikely to take on two adult sheep that are at least twice his size. lone coyotes can easily prey on lambs and packs of coyotes are known to take on adults but a pack is unlikely to roam into urban and suburban areas. a coyote would also eat what it kills.

poor andrew. he has either overestimated his own intelligence or he must not be familiar with craven desires and the truth blog. ROZSA is operating under the false assumption that he is a "responsible, knowledgeable pit bull owner" and that there is nothing that he could possibly learn from these blogs and that the mere sighting of a Goebbels quote or the pit bull banner with swastikas is proof that i am nazi/racist/bigot. he made another grave error, expecting me to believe this old con favored by pit nutters about cougars being the culprits. never trust your pit bull not to fight and never trust craven to not check out your story. i don't take anyone's word on faith, ever. i require proof, always. if nothing else, just a little bit of time spent on craven or the truth blog or america's dog and ROZSA would have discovered that i can be a bit of a pit bull too. i have friends all over the U.S., including alabama and i managed to acquire ROZSA'S court documents and the case law cited in his case. and as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

ROZSA DID NOT PROVE IN COURT THAT THE SHEEP OWNER WAS LYING. IN FACT, THE COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT ROZSA WAS LYING TO ME.

screenshot of the judgment



BOTH the plaintiff and the defendant proved their cases.

first, the original claim filed by the sheep owner. the victim proved in court that ROZSA'S pit bulls killed his sheep and the judge awarded him the value of the sheep, $1350.00.

second, the counter claim against the sheep owner. the judge rendered a favorable verdict for ROZSA'S wrongful death counterclaim and awarded him the maximum allowed in small claims court, $3000.00.

ROZSA was ordered to pay the court costs.

alabama law is very clear, dog owners are responsible for the damage caused by their dog EVEN if the dog had no previous history of aggression. the counter claim is the tricky part and it required some research on my part.

Kershaw v McKown
JH McKown shot and killed CG Kershaw's dog when it attacked his goats. Kershaw (dog owner) sued McKown (goat owner) claiming the goat owner had no right to kill his dog, that his dog was more valuable than the goat and the goat owner should have shooed the dog away. the jury ruled in the goat owner's favor. the dog owner appealed. the alabama supreme court ruled unanimously "The defendant had the right to act on the reasonable appearance of things [***7] in defending his property from such attack." in ROZSA'S case, once the sheep were dead, lethal force was considered excessive and unreasonable.

in the eyes of the law in the state of alabama, with the sheep dead, the threat is considered to no longer exist. it is an undisputed fact that the pit bulls no longer posed a threat to THOSE sheep but the dogs have just demonstrated what they are capable of and to allow the killers to leave your property, potentially in search of other victims is irresponsible. that's just my opinion but i suspect that it is shared by many. additionally, if the sheep owner called 911 but the dogs were gone by the time law enforcement or animal control arrived, he would not know the identity of the dogs' owner and therefore would be unable to be made whole. it is unfortunate that the sheep owner did not appeal the verdict. clearly, this is a law that needs to be challenged, especially in light of the ever increasing popularity of pit bulls in the hands of the incompetent.

under what conditions would the sheep owner have prevailed in both cases?

in the eyes of the current law in the state of alabama, the sheep owner would be free and clear to kill the pits IF the sheep were already dead and the sheep owner knew them to have a prior history of viciousness.

the current law in the state of alabama allows the sheep owner to kill the pits IF the sheep were alive and actively being attacked or threatened with attack or IF the the sheep were dead and the sheep owner was already armed and said he feared for his safety. this is where the knowledge of "stand your ground" law comes in handy. inherent in the stand your ground laws is "no duty to retreat". some states look down on someone who removes themselves from a threat (retreats), arms themselves and then place themselves back in danger. this is one reason why it is important to always be armed and why it is critical to know your state laws. if you have access to the internet, you have access to your state's laws. (more about stand your ground in part 3)


"I will use whatever argument I think will help get my personal bias/belief across." Dr Andrew Rozsa


"On the bases of 30 years of education and 25 years of clinical practice, I will tell you, without hesitation, that anybody who thinks that there are no differences between races is either ignorant or has an ugly, ugly, political agenda. You want to set someone up for sure failure? Expect him to deliver something that he cannot." Dr Andrew Rozsa

ROZSA dedicated hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of training. he treated his dogs kindly and yet when given the opportunity, his dogs went on a killing spree. if ROZSA did everything right, why did his dogs kill 2 sheep? if not nurture, then nature. there is not a third option. still ROZSA clings to the propaganda as evidenced by his comments post attack (6.17.11). there was no softening or shifting of his nature/nurture position. there was no diminished chest thumping of dog handling prowess.

"I will NOT engage in a nature vs. nurture argument here. I know for a fact that I can modify the behavior of the dog to conform to the needs, rules, and social requirements of the milieu in which it lives." 11.28.11

ROZSA has been presented with disconfirmation of his beliefs - killer pit dogs. that created an uncomfortable situation, so he concocted an alternative explanation - mountain lions*.

pit bull advocates will say whatever they feel will advance their cause at any given moment, which is why their propaganda weaves in and out of reality & fantasy and has so many conflicting rationalizations. this is how a highly educated successful professional can testify under oath that his dogs did not kill his neighbor's sheep, and insist that the killers had to be a mountain lion or a coyote. ROZSA has actually convinced himself that his pit bulls were innocent.

DR ROZSA proudly reproduced the PBRC pit bull owner commandments on his blog in 2008. it is still there.



how many violations do you find? an even better question would be how many violations would ROZSA find? my money is on none.

i count numbers 1,2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 as violations. the most egregious violation is #10, as it compounds all of the other violations and creates an environment where this is likely to happen again. ROZSA refuses to take any responsibility for the wanton killing of his neighbor's sheep which is evidenced by his counter claim and fantasy land excuses of natural predation. the death of the sheep was the direct result of ROZSA'S inability to properly contain and supervise his pit bulls, NOT his inability to train and nurture them.

from andrew's primer on the APBT:
1. APBTs are not for everyone. Definitely not for a first-time dog owner. Ownership of an American Pit Bull Terrier demands dedication, a firm hand, willingness to commit to being responsible for every second of every minute, 24/7 of your dog's entire life.

ROZSA has proved once again that the APBT is not for the first time dog owner, himself included. ROZSA has proved that there is no such thing as 24/7 responsibility, himself included. ROZSA has proved once again that the face pit nutters present to the rest of us is far from reality, himself included. SANDOR and TISA were ROZSA'S first APBTs, they were his first dogs. ROZSA is now officially an experienced pit bull owner and he is onto his second set of mutants. but his experience came at the cost of his neighbor's sheep and his neighbor's peace of mind. for the sake of those living around him, i hope ROZSA took this education seriously but given the tone of his comments to me "my dogs" " my money" "my time" "my rights" "my loss" "my pain and suffering", that is unlikely.

there are good reasons why pit bulls (and their owners) are the most hated in america, in any decade. thank you for the reminder andrew.

*an unsubstantiated report of a mountain lion in birmingham on 4.5.12 caused some concern but "Experts say your chances of being attacked or killed by a domestic dog are much, much greater than being attacked by a mountain lion."

part three

ROZSA'S killer pits

ROZSA'S replacement pits

unskilled and unaware


ockham's razor

cognitive dissonance

kershaw v mckown

dogbitelaw/alabama

31 comments:

Miss Margo said...

MOUNTAIN LIONS!

What is this--at least the 3rd pit bull attack (2 were on humans) that I've heard blamed on a puma...?
I lived most of my life in a mountain lion habitat.

Even hunters and ranchers and outdoorsmen almost never lay eyes on one. Pumas are famously shy creatures, and they do indeed hunt and live almost exclusively at night. The only glimpses 99% of people see of them are from rancher SECURITY CAMERAS. The puma always jumps in, grabs a baby goat (or lamb or whatever), and gets the hell out of Dodge as fast as its feet can carry it. You can look it up yourself. It's so rare, I never heard a rancher bitching about pumas.

I found a YouTube video of a mountain lion/puma taking a lamb. This is how it happens, in my understanding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUPqkc8Jjk4

dawn james said...

yep, and they were both darwin attacks.

i live in cougar country. i saw one once when i was hiking with my dogs. my dogs could smell it but they couldn't see it. they started frantically sniffing the air and i started looking around. i saw it sitting motionless about 100 ft above the trail, just watching us pass by. i wasn't worried about it at all. i can't see a cougar messing with an adult and 200 lbs of dogs. i wish i would have had a camera.

vintage said...

Discriminating? Yes. Discriminatory? No.

By FELICIA R. LEE
Published: December 13, 2003

It started with a pit bull.

Frederick Schauer, who teaches a course on the first amendment at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, was reading about some dog lovers who claimed ''canine racism'' in response to measures to curb attacks by pit bulls in New York City.

That particular race card, he said, was an extreme example of how society has become so obsessed with avoiding any stereotypes that it ignores reality. Pit bulls are more aggressive than other breeds, he said....


The Canine Race Card

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Vintage,

Many pit nutters are absolutely racist. They only use the "canine race card" because it's there to use and convenient.

Pit nutter cried "racism" and then I read a comment from him 6 months earlier talking about how he's not racist but thinks "blacks (from the US) have a chip on their shoulder", and some other stereotyping comments.

Sputnik2009 said...

Pit nutter is projecting. If ever there was anyone with an (IQ-depressed) chip on their shoulder, it's the pit-freak, sorry, I mean nutter.

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

Replacement pits? REPLACEMENT PITS!!!

Here's the proof that one gross failure and public embarrassment is never enough for a nutter. Aside from the one neighbor-victim known to be armed, the rest of the neighborhood should prepare.

Clearly, education doesn't cure or prevent all types of fuckwittery.

snarky said...

well yea , its kinda a no-brainer this pitters gonna do it all over again. if he had what it takes to learn anything from this , it never would have happened in the first place. smart , successful pitters can be just problematic as the more usual young ,criminal , psychopathic pitter. pitterism crosses all boundaries , social, economic and physical too - fences , gates, chainlink ,barbedwire ect

dawn james said...

"and physical too - fences , gates, chainlink ,barbedwire ect "


and glass, drywall.

dawn james said...

thank you vintage. great article.

april 29 said...

Just got home from work and way behind on this but here are my first thoughts.

In the photos of the killer pits, this "responsible and educated pit bull owner" photographs one of his "CGC and TDI Therapy Dogs" dogs in a treadmill, and hanging from a spring pole. Why would this sort of equipment be used for his gentle pets?

Anytime a pit bull (or two) is at large long enough to be on the neighbor's property and kill livestock, by definition, the owner is NOT responsible. However, he is responsible for the death of his own dogs.

DubV said...

Good point, April 29. I'm guessing some of his law suit was a way to ameliorate his own feelings of guilt over the death of his dog. Yep, it must be doggie racism that caused his pits to be killed, that's the ticket.

Dayna Hamilton said...

I'm still reading through all this stuff. Craven, your research is incredible. This nutter is a narcissist and a sociopath.

dawn james said...

april29, that's the appeal of pit bulls. that's what is known as the pit bull paradox, tough as nails on the outside (kick the ass of anyone of thing on the block) with a gooey center (cuddlebug)

DubV said...

It's a common trope in romance movies for a main character (often a man) to have at first one characteristic that is very strong but then be revealed to have another that seems could not coexist with the other. I'm not sure if this trope caused the want of this, or vice versa. It makes some sense either way.

It is perhaps a case of wanting it all in some way. I first began to realize that this phenomenon existed and that it might be somewhat pervasive and non-adaptive when I had a female co-worker explain to me her perfect man several years ago.

In short, she secretly wanted a guy who was physically massive, intimidating, tough, and who at least on the outside was also psychologically macho and wouldn't hesitate to kick anyone's butt, especially for his significant other. BUT on the inside, she wanted him to be very sensitive, BUT she wanted to be the only one in the world who could access that part and knew about it.

I asked a few questions about this, but walked away thinking it was some of the craziest shit I'd ever heard. I also was hoping this was not an extremely common desire.

Some men have their female equivalent of this paradox person in mind as well.

It all reminds me of these crazy rescue angels.

dawn james said...

HA! so that's what is in those romance novels. i never read one. in fact, i almost never read fiction unless it is a classic with social or political relevance like to kill a mockingbird or crime and punishment.

Andrew said...

Interesting how self-deluded "leaders" think that sycophants are friends. Wah, wah, wah... the whine that reaches Hell.

If you were only interested in the truth. You are not. You are a liar and a dishonest dishrag who has no life.

Your wonderful recount of who I am and what happened to me is so full of direct lies and lies by omission that I won't even bother responding to them.

Regarding the sheep... 1. The only reason my evidence was not sufficient proof to the judge that my dogs did not kill the sheep is that I was not there when the sheep were killed; nothing less and nothing more; ask the judge or the murderer's attorney; 2. I did not have to pay for court costs; the plaintiff did; 3. that a mountain lion was seen in the neighborhood is both a matter of record in the logs of Shelby Animal Control and it was also told to my wife outside the court, while waiting to testify by the moron's next door neighbor; the presence of coyotes in our area (we are across the street from a 77,000 acre state park) is also a matter of record - I have local publication that printed it several times over the last 10 years; 4. I did not take a penny from the creep - Instead, I had him donate a paltry sum to the Bama Bully Rescue. 5. Almost every one of the members or fosters in the Bama Bully Rescue organization are either veterinarians, vet techs, work for animal rescues or shelters, or are somehow helping keep the population safe and stop cruelty to animals and their slaughter by the hundreds of thousands every year; every one of them is a kind, genuine caring person; not a single asshole among them - something that can hardly be said about the shrill whiners that populates this stinky swamp you call a blog; 6. Go ahead - kill Pit Bulls - I beg you. They are getting killed anyway - at least this way I can watch you idiots get what's yours. Listen to Dawn. She will get you fined and maybe even see some prison time. I only wish.

DubV said...

" that a mountain lion was seen in the neighborhood is both a matter of record in the logs of Shelby Animal Control and it was also told to my wife outside the court,"

People think they see things all the time. Were you aware that state biologists do not believe cougars to be in Alabama before you put some of your eggs in that basket?

" The only reason my evidence was not sufficient proof to the judge that my dogs did not kill the sheep is that I was not there when the sheep were killed; nothing less and nothing more; ask the judge or the murderer's attorney;"

You would not have been fined if you merely lacked evidence of innocent. You still struggling with the burden of proof concept? And that you actually lost the case too was hidden from Dawn, wasn't admitted to by you when you emailed her, correct?

"Your wonderful recount of who I am and what happened to me is so full of direct lies and lies by omission that I won't even bother responding to them."

Of course you would disagree. Duh. Pretty convenient to refuse to give something credence by addressing it.

DubV said...

Andrew is physically incapable of changing his mind and admitting to being wrong. It's a relatively common trait among nutters, most people can spot it.

DubV said...

"dishrag"

Strange that I'd rather be a dishrag than someone who harbored dangerous dogs that got out and senselessly killed peaceful animals. You have to insult us Andrew, when all we need to do here is simply play your own words back to you and link to publicly available information.

dawn james said...

i am really interested in your philosophy of dog chaining, please expand on that, just that, nothing else. i really want to know how your philosophy permits the chaining of a stinky chow/husky for 11 years but only cold hearted bastards chain a pit bull. here is your chance to enlighten us all andrew.

if shelby county is anything like jefferson or montgomery county then YES, of course the ACO corroborated the mountain lion sighting. i would be shocked if they didn't.

i have taken a special interest in alabama. my obsession started in november 2010.
and funny that you should mention bama bully rescue, they have been on my radar for the last week.

dishonest dishrag? i much prefer 'pimple on a mulatto crack whore's ass'. i think it shows the true spirit of the advocates for america's dog. you know, the only thing white racists hate more than blacks are blacks polluting the master race. i guess those honky rednecks don't want black people hurting their "superior" IQs.

Andrew said...

DubV - I was awarded $1650 more than the creep. Comparing the relationship between a dog and its companion to sheep raised for meat is insane, my friend. Courts all over the country agree that the relationship between dog and its companion is special and I can cite you case law examples in which huge punitive damages were awarded to dog owners, even if they killed a domestic animal. But, I repeat, my dogs did NOT kill the sheep. The moron thought they must have, because like you and your cadre here, he ASSUMED that if it's a Pit Bull it must be a killer. The judge based his decision on the fact that I was not an eye witness to what happened. Neither was the "complainant," yet, he went inside the house, got a rifle and willfully and with malice killed dogs that were walking away. My companions. The Judge's statement was that without eye witnesses there is no evidence other than the recount of Mr. X, a liar, curmudgeon, and money mongering fool who, when I offered to let him off the hook for the money he owed me, said, "But I want my money."

I was urged to bring criminal charges against the moron and, according to my attorney, we could have put the sheepfucker in prison and have him fined... but what's the point? You can't change people's minds when their opinion is based on ignorance and hysterics.

The only reason I even came here is because one of your "friends" opined on my blog that "your dogs are killers and I know you and the Courts have found you guilty." Spending your life spreading half-truths is so pitiful it makes my heart ache. I spent a lifetime helping people (thousands of them), yet I am called names and accused of incredible deeds, which according to you and your cohorts are comparable to Hitler's mass murders. Dawn quoting Goebbels is not helping your cause.

Dawn - I deplore ANY mistreatment of any animal. Chaining is unacceptable to any of us who are in my support group. We offer help to people who are having problems with their dogs, save dogs that are salvageable and likely to make good family pets. We choose to spend our time, knowledge, and money to do something that we think is good. How can you judge us this harshly is beyond my ability to understand. Comparing us to thugs and criminals, when in fact we are ALL professionals and decent people, indicates (to me) a nefarious agenda. I wish you peace of mind.

DubV said...

"Comparing the relationship between a dog and its companion to sheep raised for meat is insane, my friend."

Hmm...and I would sooner compare the suffering of the two sets of animals. Sheep are surely capable of feeling pain and distress. Your animals felt relatively little compared to the sheep they tore apart.

DubV said...

" I can cite you case law examples in which huge punitive damages were awarded to dog owners, even if they killed a domestic animal."

I guess dog nuts have had an effect on the legal system. It was once the opposite, and animals raised as someone's livelihood and minding their own business could be defended by lethal force even if a dog was merely "worrying" them. That type of law is still on the books in many areas.

DubV said...

" But, I repeat, my dogs did NOT kill the sheep."

You weren't there Andrew. You obviously don't know.

DubV said...

" The moron thought they must have, because like you and your cadre here, he ASSUMED that if it's a Pit Bull it must be a killer."

No, he had 2 dogs in his field with dead sheep. Do you think 2 golden retrievers would've gotten off easier? You must be a mind reader to know exactly how your dogs being pits figured into the farmer's decision.

DubV said...

"killed dogs that were walking away. My companions. The Judge's statement was that without eye witnesses there is no evidence other than the recount of Mr. X, a liar, curmudgeon, and money mongering fool"

A guy shot your dogs on his property next to his dead sheep. Based upon your dogs being nice around you and trained by you, you assume he is a liar even though you admit not being there. You have no reason to discount his testimony. It is his word against that of 2 dead dogs.

DubV said...

"I was urged to bring criminal charges against the moron and, according to my attorney, we could have put the sheepfucker in prison and have him fined"

Maybe your attorney wanted some money in legal fees? Besides, you would not have done anything, a prosecutor would have, and if a prosecutor really was against this guy, then they could bring criminal charges without your consent.

DubV said...

"Spending your life spreading half-truths is so pitiful it makes my heart ache."

"I will use whatever argument I think will help get my personal bias/belief across." Dr Andrew Rozsa

Miss Margo said...

"I spent a lifetime helping people (thousands of them), yet I am called names and accused of incredible deeds, which according to you and your cohorts are comparable to Hitler's mass murders. Dawn quoting Goebbels is not helping your cause."

Sir, this is sneaky, misleading, and utterly baseless. Where did Dawn James--or any contributor here--say that you were accused of "incredible deeds" with are "comparable to Hilter's mass murders?" That is an outrageous and insulting accusation.

If you show me where I am wrong, I will retract that statement.

Dawn James has not accused you of "incredible deeds." In this series of articles, there is nothing "incredible" about your behavior as pit bull owner or your decisions. Indeed, your naivete and arrogance about your pet dogs is positively UBIQUITOUS--as is your callous disregard for the well-being of your neighbor's livestock/pets.

Lastly, why is it bad for Dawn to quote Geobbels? What is your point? Researchers shouldn't quote from major historical figures? You just put a million Political Theory Ph.D.'s out of business. Liberal (Conservative here in the USA, as I'm sure you know, sir) economists quote from Karl Marx in their academic publications all the time.

You just bring that Goebbels quote to suggest some guilt by association. Dawn James was making a point about PROPAGANDA, and you know it. A high-school student could infer that from the reading. There is nothing wrong with your reading comprehension. You did that on purpose.

It doesn't help your cause.

Anonymous said...

Good article, except for the irritating, lazy habit of not using sentence case. Is it that hard to use proper English?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

yes