Sunday, April 27, 2014

Antisocial Character and Behavior: Threats and Solutions - William H. Reid


NATURAL-BORN PSYCHOPATHS

The costs of chronic and widespread psychopathic behavior are not some nonjudgmental natural phenomena in which the fittest survive. North America is not "nature red in tooth and claw," in which there is no right or wrong in being predator or prey in some oddly natural order of things. We control our social destiny as no animals and no other humans in history have done. We are rational people choosing to deny our own responsibility for personal and social well-being.

I dislike anthropological comments, now pop social science, that compare psychopaths to wolves and speak of some misinterpreted Darwinian survival of the fittest. Such academic wags are engaging in what seems to be the opposite of anthropomorphism. It is tempting to say that our masses have somehow become baitfish for the psychopathic shark, or sheep for the antisocial wolf, but this is not quite the case. In modern society, human predators are not acting out of some instinct, and their prey are not genetically predestined to become part of a figurative food chain. To say that most human predators are acting animalistically, out of some natural but hypertrophied survival or territorial imperative, is to give them more credit than they are due, and to deny them the responsibility that we are entitled to demand for their actions.

I agree that we can see remnants of our phylogeny in our brains and behaviors, but it is a mistake to search there for answers to behavioral questions. Sadistic, amoral, or intraspecies violence (not related to mating contests or, in a few species, competition for food) is not often found in nature. It has little evolutionary value. Thus predatory sexual violence, for example, cannot be correctly termed "animalistic," since no "animals" engage in it. Preying upon the elderly or disabled of one's own species, a hallmark of psychopathic opportunism, has almost no parallel in mammalian nature. Human psychopathy involves human experience and human choice.

If the human predators, psychopaths and others, are not to be seen as "animals," should they be seen as "only human," part of the "human condition"? And should they be treated according to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Should our lofty principles and sense of ethics cause us to treat them with understanding and forgiveness alone? Of course not.


OUR SENSE OF FAIRNESS IS KILLING US

One of the biggest obstacles to finding answers to chronic antisocial behavior and violent crime, and at the same time one of the least appreciated, is our sense of fairness.

Law-abiding citizens are heavily invested in the premise that all people value the tenets of our Constitution. Many go further, and believe that a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution is important to protecting our republic and its representative democracy.

Chronic criminals and psychopaths do not value the same rules and tenets, except for themselves. Instead, they use them against us. Thus they take from us in a very serious way–by turning our deep convictions (and guilts about going against those convictions) to their own ends. We hobble ourselves, but not the crooks, with our rules. In this, one of the most dangerous games, the playing field is wildly tilted in favor of the opponent.

But isn't our sense of fairness in the face of adversity a mark of our civilization? Isn't this what separates us from the animals, and even from the very criminals we seek to control? Don't we need that sense of fairness to keep out society intact?

No. First, life is full of situations in which we need to do something distasteful, try to do it within our rules of law and ethics, and somehow accomplish the goal. Most of us agree that we need to slaughter animals from time to time. We do it as humanely as possible, but we get it done. And we do it in such a way that our needs for food, safety, efficiency, and profit are met. We also agree that some public health needs are important enough to require suspension of some rights of people who have not been convicted of any crime; this suspension is sometimes based merely on the possibility that they may become ill and represent a danger to others. We require that certain people with infections be reported, treated, and in some cases prevented from infecting others (via quarantine or even incarceration).

But we shrink from controlling the criminal or probably criminal, even when the danger is far more obvious. We are so bound by the tenets of fairness and basic equality upon which we have founded systems of Western law (and some, but not all, Western religion) that we steadfastly prevent ourselves from seeing some exceptions to those tenets. We recognize that there are exceptions–for children and a few other groups–but we fail to apply them to psychopaths and other chronically predatory people until the damage has been done.


Firm Action Need Not Threaten Our Democracy or Our Ethics

We wrestle endlessly with the question of who is the greater danger: those who would openly subvert society and overthrow it, or those who we fear would weaken it by suspending our rights, one by one in the name of protecting us from some internal threat. While we have been interminably discussing this weighty issue, the psychopaths, who don't trouble themselves with contemplation, have been gaining ground. It is not just a question of finding a solution that protects us from violence while guarding against the possibility that we will throw the Constitution out with the crooks. Our philosophical struggle with the issues has become truly obsessive. We are frustrated, but complacent. Reformers disagree, obstruct each other's actions, and accomplish virtually nothing in the way of real solutions. If this were an invasion, with clouds of war gathering on the horizon, would we be so complacent?

There is no "if". To fail to act is to make our world even smaller–to give up our streets, parks, stores, and schools to predators who neither believe in nor adhere to the rules we hold dear for ourselves. To fail to act is to continue to limit our freedoms at the hands of those who laugh at our naiveté. To fail to act may be to lose our democracy.


"They" Are Different from "Us"

I have no wish to dehumanize people when I say that those who purposely endanger others in our streets, parks, and schools, even our homes, are qualitatively different from us; the enemy is at our door. Most of our energy must be diverted to immediate defense, not merely to studying his motivations. There is no (reasonable) ethic which requires that we treat him as we treat other adults; indeed, to do so is foolish. If we treat him as if he were like us, we will continue to fail, and he will continue to take from us.



Antisocial Character and Behavior: Threats and Solutions, William H. Reid
Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, Theodore Millon PhD DSc, et al, 2003


















William H Reid is a forensic psychiatrist and author of Unmasking the Psychopath: Antisocial Personality and Related Symptoms.
I recommend both books.

related post Community Protection Act

129 comments:

snarky said...


" there is no ethic that requires us to treat him like ourselves"

much like a pitbull dog we need to see them as different and distinct from normal or risk becoming victim .

Ka D said...

In a study one in every FIVE Americans is thought to be somewhere on the spectrum of psychopathic behavior. No wonder this country shows so much support for the 'canine psychopath' and so little empathy for its victims! I personally believe that psychopaths are EVIL. This condition is a physical manifestation of a choice the soul made. They cannot be cured, just like pit bulls cannot be cured of unprovoked and disproportionate aggression, or it just wouldn't be a pit bull anymore.

Anonymous said...

A lot of people feel that they are obligated to manipulate people and events to wring every tiny advantage for themselves. They're convinced everyone does it and that they're a good person because they don't (fill in the blank).

They'll call people 'haters' and refer to a listing of victims of dogs as 'spreading hate'. Then they turn right around in the next breath and say they hate the person who made that post, they hate all the people who make such posts or even read such posts without screaming 'pibble good!' Then they continue perhaps in another post about all of the animals they hate (everything except pibble usually), all of the people they hate, all of the sites they hate, and all of the victims who they hate for not 'moving on' yet they can't 'move on' from a post they read once that didn't praise pibble to the skies.

At this point, they're calling fucking pit bulls (insert breed du jour name here) a 'gentle breed'. As in hoooooow can anyone make this gentle breed fight (even as they threaten to have their gentle dog maul all of the people they're pissed at which is half the world). At this point, some of them are so deranged that anyone who agrees with them has some issues.

Yes, GOD FORBID we do something about loose maulers that are eating people alive. We should move on and concern ourselves with those damned swimming pools that stalk weak swimmers until they can envelope them in the chlorinated depths.

Only HATERS would be concerned that lunatics are playing Dr. Frankenstein with a bunch of dogs that are good enough at fighting right now. Are these the same nutcases who scream that PIT BULLS (by whatever name) were bred (nut bread) to be NANNY DOGS and the zombie hordes believe it and let the damned things babysit.

Then, to prove a point to people who aren't even there, they let their kids WALK on the pit bulls (seriously, I saw a kid standing on one's head to reach something). I don't like pibble, but it is rude to stand on a creature's head! They're not footstools, they're not pillow, they're not babysitters... they're dogs. They can be mean as shit, too. But, not always or we'd have less nutters and fatter dogs.

They also KNOW their dogs don't like other people as much as they like the nutter family, but they think that is right and proper. If it was just pibble's friendship, that'd be o.k. Unfortunately, it is them scaring us with their dogs. Especially when they start pitching a fit with their dog right there and not really understanding that their owner is in NO danger.

I'm afraid of some dogs. I've known several people who had rottweilers. They kept their dogs away from me. It wasn't that hard to arrange. They understood, it's nothing personal against THEIR dog. It doesn't mean anything bad about THEIR dog. We just hang out somewhere that the rottweiler isn't. Since I never met their dogs, IDK if they were good dogs or bad. None of them got hauled to doggy jail and they stayed where they were supposed to stay.

"dawn james" said...

anon 11:59, that is one of finest public thrashings of nutter and mutant to date. thanks for sharing it on craven. i might need to make that its very own blog post.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Dawn. ^-^

Anonymous said...

Oh, the part about rottweilers at the end seems weird since I took out a paragraph (and I should've taken out the rottweiler paragraph as well). It was basically this...

Nutters need to look CLOSELY at pit bulls (insert current name) being hauled off to doggy jail by AC (or, in some cases, AuC). Pretty often, pibble is just delighted to see the people who have come to put it in a case for a ten-day quarantine. They have that big 'smile' (spoiler...it's just a lot of teeth and big jaws) and the wiggle butt tail is working. Or, the most dignified ones, are showing off their obedience training flawlessly (probably better than they ever did for the person who paid for the training). They're usually just delighted by the whole prospect. Maybe some naive AC worker will accidentally (or not) toss a cur into their cage. In other words, they're just not that picky.

So maybe human friends are important, too. Maybe other humans deserve a little consideration so that it doesn't HAVE to come to the nutters' worst predictions coming true. just find a way to keep pibble under some semblance of control even if it is 'the best dog ever', 'a canine good citizen', and a 'breed ambassador'. Maybe if pibble is seen enough times not creating mayhem (which means nutters need to tone down the drama) their reputation WILL change. I mean, at least a little.

But, they're still fighting dogs. Anyone with eyes to see knows it.

tropical storms said...

Freaking awesome.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Tropical Storms. ^-^

Anonymous said...

I have taken note of two things pit bull advocates (nutters, etc.) are doing...

First, they are railing on about AKC registration and the American Staffordshire Terrier. And trying to pretend that it's possible to register the exact same dog with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier. So, they're spitting in the face of the shade of Colby and pretending the UKC just does not exist.

The Louisiana mutant, a purple ribbon UKC APBT, they went on and on about him not being an AKC registered AST. As if lack of AKC papers (that we know about) transforms him into a turtle. Even if he is oversized, his lineage is all pit bull.

The other thing they are doing is rejecting the 'pit bull' label for 'bulldog'. For one thing, that causes many people to think of those short, fat, slow ones that can barely breathe. They can probably bite the crap out of you, but most people can escape them. But, they don't mean those dogs. They mean, naturally, pit bulls.

Here is the thing, I know a pit bull can be called a bulldog. I've done it myself. But, I was under the impression that you can't call any old pibble a bulldog. I thought it had special connotations. I get they're fleeing from the tainted 'pit bull' name (even though that is what their dogs are), but bulldog is a particularly interesting substitution.

Since they're going that route, the little 'look at my bulldog licking my baby's head' or 'look at my kids riding my bulldog' or whatever other unsafe things they're doing to prove a point to, I guess, each other are more puzzling than ever. I see photos all that time of kids doing things with pit bulls that I've never done with ANY dog. They're always going on about 'teaching dog safety'. Does pibble know that these rules are suspended when the camera (phone) is out?

I know that I've gone away from the topic of psychopaths, but I think narcissitic behavior also has a hand in this. Some of them NEED to prove us wrong. (Not all of them, but I think those people aren't causing problems for anyone. Thus, their dogs are usually contained.) I don't know how exactly since all of us do know that there are indeed pit bulls that haven't even mauled anyone. But, we were never talking about those dogs.

Their owners' inability to entertain the thought that there might be someone who did not love all pibbles above all else is what dragged the dogs that have never caused any problems into the discussion. Their inability to admit that pit bulls aren't suitable for everyone is what caused them to grab a bunch of random mutants and foist them off on the misinformed public.

FFS! Their crazy has created our problem, their dogs' problem, and their own problem. WTH is in the water that has screwed their brains up so much?

I mean, I admit, I am afraid of a lot of dogs. So, I don't have a dog. I don't go places there will be a lot of dogs. I'm cautious about meeting big dogs even if they're owned by friends (I have been around a few that I was o.k. with such as a husky owned by a family member). I manage my own bullshit. I don't expect the world to conform to me. If people weren't letting their maulers cause mayhem, then I would happily go right back to not thinking about pit bulls.

If there weren't a bunch of weird and corrupt things going on surrounding pit bulls, I really would not spend this much time thinking about them. Even if they were as sweet as advertised, they're just too athletic for me (if I wasn't afraid of them), so I would never own one. I think they need owners that will give them more exercise than I ever would.

Which, HINT, there are too many people who are way less capable than me that have five of them... WTF? Another sign of nutterism? A sign of dog fighting? A breeder? A hoarder? Pibble brought home four friends and nutter is too scared to tell them to leave?

Anonymous said...

I left out a word...

They're trying to pretend that it's not possible to dual register AKC AST and UKC APBT.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Anon @10:33pm

Calling pit bulls, bulldogs has been going on for decades. I consider it dog fighter slang.

Only recently has it become a popular thing to do. Also "lab mix" is a popular one. When you hear someone call their pit bull a "bulldog" you know they're a full on pit nutter and possibly a dog fighter.

They use those terms for whatever they feel fits the situation.

Anonymous said...

Rumplestilskin, I grew up hearing them called "bulldogs". It was confusing later to hear the term only meaning the fat, wheezing dog rather than an athletic dog that might have an underbite (but not a severe one). O.K., I am describing a particular nanny...

But, it seems weird to me that some nutters are using "bulldog" when they are trying to pretend "dog fighting hasn't happened in 130 years" (I actually read that). And hey, look, a dog fighter was busted about three days ago!

Meanwhile, the rescue angels are encouraged to "rescue" fight dogs above all others and I can't imagine who'd want THOSE bulldogs!

Still.. I thought bulldogs were pretty much fighting dogs (or dogs fit to fight) and not dogs wandering around in tutus with the occasional toddler standing on their heads.

Also, "bulldogs" brings to mind bull baiting... another wonderful chapter in "America's dog" past! Just as "pit bull" brings to mind the pit where they fight various creatures, but mostly one another.

I find it strange that some nutters rush to use "bulldog" over "pit bull" even as they pretend being AKC registered is the end all, be all probably because the AKC name doesn't have "pit bull" right in the middle of it.

orangedog said...

I don't care what they call them. Calling them "pibbles", which is about the dumbest name ever, doesn't change the underlying genetic ugliness that's inside.
You can put a tutu on a pit bull, but it's still a fighting dog.

"dawn james" said...

"The Louisiana mutant, a purple ribbon UKC APBT, they went on and on about him not being an AKC registered AST. As if lack of AKC papers (that we know about) transforms him into a turtle."

LOL!

scorched earth said...

The UKC website has explicit instructions on Single registration of AKC Amstaffs as UKC APBT.

http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/News/UnitedKennelClubAnnouncest07172013022213PM

"dawn james" said...

anon 10:33, i will assume this is the same anon that i praised above. yet another brilliant comment. if you ever feel like blogging, shoot me an email.

crvndesires@gmail.com

"dawn james" said...

"But, it seems weird to me that some nutters are using "bulldog" when they are trying to pretend "dog fighting hasn't happened in 130 years" (I actually read that). And hey, look, a dog fighter was busted about three days ago!"

they say all kinds of incongruent shit! i've seen at least three freaking nutters say that pit bulls were originally bred for some other purpose, nannying, herding, etc and humans only started fighting them in the 1970s!!!

"dawn james" said...

re: the use "bulldog", in my experience the only people to use "bulldog" are people who either a) fight them or don't have a problem with fighting them or b) understand that they are different from other dogs.

the people who emphasize "terrier" are the nutters. and they do this to detract from the unique danger that bulldogs pose. dawn capp is a perfect example of someone who is machiavellian in her emphasis of "terrier".

"dawn james" said...

"I know that I've gone away from the topic of psychopaths, but I think narcissitic behavior also has a hand in this."

narcissism and psychopathy go hand in hand but people are free to take discussions in any direction they like.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 'pibbles' is as crazy dumb as the tutus they keep slapping on these mutants. To me, this just makes the mutant look a stupidly deranged fighting dog rather than just a fighting dog. And it makes the owner look incredibly clueless.

Anonymous said...

^-^

Him being a turtle would explain why so many shots were needed... and here I thought they probably kept deflecting off its big old head.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well... interesting link...

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Dawn. ^-^

All of the Anonymous comments in this thread so far are me.

tropical storms said...

Dawn, true statement. I never heard them called anything other than bulldogs except by neophytes to the game. This term when spoken with emphasis (that's a BULLDOG!) Meant a really good game dog. Otherwise it applied to all fighting breeds.

Anonymous said...

I've seen all of that stuff, too. The things are awful at herding (unless the farmer just wants his flock chased around and mauled to death, they are right on top of that). A bunny rabbit in Sweden learned herding by watching the border collies. He is a better herder by far than any pit bull, ever. But, he is very small, so oddly enough border collies still have the herding job when the sheep go out into the field.

Nannying is particularly absurd when they bring it up right after nanny has mauled a child...even if the child dies in nanny's care. Of course, they blame the parents for having a dog around a baby. But, pit bulls were still nanny dogs in their comments because back in the day, people must've had a lot of spare children lying around(?). So, if nanny clamped one a bit too tightly, I guess nutters have decided people of the past were o.k. with that. As long as fur baby nanny is o.k.

And I've read them saying that dog fighters in the 1970s just seized on gentle herding nanny dog and, somehow (an almost magical nutterverse term) forced them to fight. But, before that, no one fought pibble, perish the thought. Who can even imagine what Colby mean when he said a ABPT had to win three fights to qualify for UKC registration. As in way before the 1970s.

I've sarcastically put 'the 1970s' beside the 'dog fighters of olde'older' to emphasize that dog fighting wasn't over and done 130 years ago. I've seen other people do the same. This indicates that they might be educating themselves via comments (without detecting sarcasm). Then using it to spin a yarn that sounds plausible to them? IDK...

Anonymous said...

Interesting... I haven't seen 'terrier' emphasized as much. I've seen 'bully', but with the American Bully coming out and their disdain for that dog (eyeroll), maybe that is ruining 'bully' for them.

Anonymous said...

See, this is what I thought.

I'd love it if they'd just admit it is a fighting breed (bread), but since they seem loathe to do that... their use of bulldog is puzzling. If they'd admit they have a pack of fighting dogs, that'd be step one in trying to get them to be a little realistic about their 'pets'.

Anonymous said...

I've seen all of that insane stuff, too.

I also recently saw an elaborate eexplanation about how the nanny dog/farm dog/favorite dog of all Americans were suddenly turned into fighters in the 1970s. That HAS to be a little kid because...

I'm not the only one who does this, but when commenting about the Dogmen of Older I'll put a.k.a. the 1970s. It's sarcastic to show dog fighting wasn't a felony everywhere that recently. So, there is no need to go back 130 years to find a dog fighter.

A little kid might seriously think the 1970s was long enough ago to be 'oolder' and not realize that the UKC was founded by a dog fighter who was operating openly and proudly long before the 1970s.

So, terrifyingly, they do not get sarcasm and they are picking and choosing elements of 'haters' comments and inventing their own theories from it. Stupid and disconnected from reality! There is no way such a person needs any kind of high maintenance animal. Maybe they need a plant or a virtual pet.

Anonymous said...

I mean old with an e on the end. my phone pitched a fit about that and made it 'older'.

orangedog said...

I think the dogmen should start putting tutus on their pits. It would be like Friday the 13th crossed with The Nutcracker.

Anonymous said...

You can thank Best Friends for advising shelters to put pit bulls in tutus -- From their adoption brochure "promotion focuses on finding homes for pit-bull-terrier-type dogs. Dressing up
these dogs helps to soften the image people have of them, making the dogs easier to relate to. The dogs can be dressed up in
glittery collars, feather boas, tutus, bowties and other gear guaranteed to make people
smile." Well their guarantee will not work on me, it makes me want to vomit.

Unheeded Warnings on FB, aka Mom said...

Since everyone is ranting…

I have a particular nutter on my (anti pit/dangerous dog) FB page that always asks about the circumstances surrounding an attack. She says things like "But, they didn't say anything about owner responsibility, or breeding!". It is like an excuse with her, like hey, don't look at my beloved breed, its those damn breeders, bad owners, fighters! (you know, everyone involved in the community…)

She is always trying to make the point that its just irresponsible and bad people that have caused the attacks and without them, pits would be just wonderful. It can't be the breed! No, no, no, that a dog created, and purpose bred for 150 years, to be the very best killer couldn't be fulfilling their genetic heritage. Just give them a good owner, love, and a proper fence, and all will be wonderful.

I loathe this attitude, it is the worst kid of excuse, just a way to try to remove blame from the breed, and deflect from the real issue- keeping fighting dogs as pets, and the damage that does.

Plus, it just does not fucking matter- ALL of those things are intertwined, all of them exist today, and all of them cause problems. Maybe in a fantasy land where pits are really gentle pibbles, and only the most responsible (LOL) people own them, and all dog fighters have disappeared.

But we live in THIS world not that one.
We deal with assholes that think its cool to own this breed, whether they are dog fighting scum, anti social nutters, or rescue angels.
We deal with daily attacks and deaths weekly.
We deal with a surplus of these dangerous dogs, that eat up our resources and all other pets.

Pit people haven't fixed the problem, so WE need too, and BSL is the only answer. I prefer an all out ban, because these owners have proven that they cannot be trusted.

Anonymous said...

If one has a strong stomach do read this, particularly page 7 with the recommendation of "speed dating" for their "Adore-a-bull" adoption promos. I guess the human equivalent would be going to a Supermax prison for "speed dating" event.

http://bestfriends.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Resources/Resources_for_Rescuers%281%29/Adoption/Individual_Resources/adoptionpromo.pdf

orangedog said...

Depends... are all the inmates at the Supermax prison wearing tutus? Ya know, to soften their image.

Anonymous said...

But back to the main topic after my tutus and speed dating digressions -- sociopaths. Lacking empathy, it is easy for a sociopath to be a criminal. And I would say that 99% of the dogs that end up in our city pound because of "owner arrested" are pit bulls and mixes. The pound has to keep the dogs for 3 days for the owner to reclaim them. After a person is arrested they are arraigned in approximately 24 hours. So these fine owners are either not being let out on bail or the bail is too high and the owner is staying in jail as their dogs are not reclaimed.

Anonymous said...

Orangedog I personally would prefer my potential Super max speed daters to be wearing glittery bow ties, maybe with a feather boa, but I would not be surprised if some of the longer incarcerated "guests of Super max" (got to keep softening that image)would want to wear the tutu.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that would be delightful. And in all the descriptions of where a mutant likes to attack an opponent first, they could add 'tutu remover'.

"Clyde, I hate to see this but Devil's Spawn just unceremoniously removed FukUrShitUp's tutu."

"I know what you're saying, Mr. X... it takes away from the pageantry that is costumed dogfighting."

"Some of our younger fans may not remember... dogs used to fight naked!"

"Hard to imagine!"

Anonymous said...

Good Lord. On one hand, I'd like to say that whosoever falls for that deserves what they get. But, then except for a few extra-heavily medicated rescue angels... I think it's probably going to be a little kid who then begs their parents to adopt the mauler. Then the liar adopter reassures the parents that the mutant is 'perfectly safe' and the 'gentlest breed' (bread) and bingo, we have another pibble with children scenario developing.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... they are insane.

There are some people who seem to be able to keep their ownership down to one dog and contain their dog and exercise their dog. And they are fine (o.k., it's usually going to be a guy who does this) until they get married and have some kids. And it's hard for them to imagine that their dog that has always been cool with them may not be able to handle all of these other people. Or someone, like, believes the propaganda... and oh boy.

Also, the breed is why the same circumstances can happen with other dogs and people hardly ever die.

Anonymous said...

I think they can hold people for four days before booking now. Sorry, pebbles!

Anonymous said...

Instead of 'super max', I like to think of it as a very secure gated community.

Anonymous said...

Y'all know I didn't write 'pebbles'. LOL

Anonymous said...

I downloaded the BFAS thing. Right away, mutant with a tiny baby.

The first mutant they show with tulle around its neck... the white in the tulle really brings out the Mauler's bottom fangs

orangedog said...

Thank you for making me laugh Anon. This is gold right here:

Oh, that would be delightful. And in all the descriptions of where a mutant likes to attack an opponent first, they could add 'tutu remover'.

"Clyde, I hate to see this but Devil's Spawn just unceremoniously removed FukUrShitUp's tutu."

"I know what you're saying, Mr. X... it takes away from the pageantry that is costumed dogfighting."

"Some of our younger fans may not remember... dogs used to fight naked!"

"Hard to imagine!"

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't Michael Vick qualify as a true psychopath? Isn't he the typical dogfighter? How about the guy who set the puppy on fire in Acadia Florida? She looks like a pit mix to me. Does he qualify? Are those typical examples of the people the breed attracts? People who torture animals, and probably enjoy some form of torturing humans. Scary thought.

Dayna Hamilton said...

There were so many excellent points in the quoted material on psychopaths...

We wrestle endlessly with the question of who is the greater danger: those who would openly subvert society and overthrow it, or those who we fear would weaken it by suspending our rights, one by one in the name of protecting us from some internal threat. While we have been interminably discussing this weighty issue, the psychopaths, who don't trouble themselves with contemplation, have been gaining ground.

I've been thinking about this for a long time, I had to uncondition myself from the politically correct bull that was drilled into my head during college and before that. We've been a civilized society for so long that we don't know how to treat the psychopaths any more, we wring our hands and ask the government to DO something because we can't allow ourselves to do something so backwards as to even discriminate against a breed of dog. Much less do what ought to be done to pedophiles, rapists and murderers. I'm so tired of it all, trying to raise children to be able to protect themselves against bad people and now I have to worry about the freaking dogs too! I'm done trying to be politically correct. It will get you nowhere but hurt...

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Orangedog. ^-^

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I think Michael Vick would definitely qualify if everything I've heard about him is true.

I didn't really follow the story when it happened, but it seems he tortured the dogs in addition to fighting them. I mean, fighting them is bad enough.. but I heard he beat the dogs. And it seems like his dogs were in extremely poor condition (or at least some of them were).

And then Michael Vick's actions spawned many rescue angels as well as myths about how the pit bull had to be abused and tortured to be made to fight.

Which, in turn, makes people think if they get a pit bull and NEVER abuse it or starve it, and instead give it good food and lots of love.. then that dog will be a pleasant companion all of the time.

The weird thing is I've heard Michael Vick starved some (all?) of his dogs. This seems really weird to me because it sounds like setting the dog up to lose since, if photos in Sporting Dog can be believed, most dogmen at least FEED their dogs.

A psychopath might starve a dog before a fight just to see what happens since it will be nothing good.

There was a big bust of dog fighters in New Jersey. And those dogs were starved with some kept outside in trash cans and others kept in the basement.

I mentioned this to my fiance and he told me Michael Vick now plays ball in New Jersey. They got the guys who had the dogs, just to be clear.

And anyone who'd torture an animal is a psychopath. There is no reason to do that, ever.

If someone has to hurt pibble because pibble is actively trying to kill them, that's different. I read about some guy who had to repeatedly stab his bull mastiff, but the thing was actively trying to eat him at the time. It had mauled a child earlier in the day and then came home and clamped onto fur daddy.

A lot of the things we see people do with pit bulls is just wrong. It's wrong to portray them as something they're not and then whine that "everyone wants them dead". Well, back in the day, most people never thought one thing about pit bulls and this is because they weren't mauling children, elderly, adults, disabled people, other pets, and livestock. Whether the thing is wearing a tutu or not, if it is clamped onto someone's neck then it is a bad dog. But, maybe the psychopaths shouldn't have let the pit bull loose so it could do something like that in the first place.

They're also letting their maulers mate with any other dog they can find in order to create a lot of mixes that are part pit bull. In other words, ruining other dogs. This is probably so when those dogs sink fang into some and give them a vigorous shaking, then the nutters can crow, "SEE! All dogs bite!!" Yes, they are such trash (many of them) they would do that.

People need to protect their unspayed female dogs! PARTICULARLY if they own a lab.

Anonymous said...

Vick's former dogs disprove the myth of it all being how they're raised if you think about it. If you search them on the net, most are just dogs now. I read The Lost Dogs and quite honestly, they went through more than just the abuse at Vick's place. Since the assumption was they'd be put down, most shelters gave them only the most basic care. Yet the dogs who have been adopted and survived are pretty average. Some are scared of strange people, some don't like cats, some don't like other dogs, a few are scared of almost everything. Hector, who was clearly fought is a therapy dog, and seems to be above average. It almost makes me wonder if once they've fought for so long, it's out of their system and they can become normal dogs. I want those dogs to succeed in being just dogs, not because I'm a nutter but because no animal should have to survive what they did only to fail later.

People really are the problem. The dogs are a symptom of a sick society. I'm against all animal abuse, not just fighting dogs, puppy mills are horrid, neglect and abuse by owners is rampant. The same with children really, people kill their kids usually because they're seriously screwed up in some way. We need to bring back mental institutions because prisons don't usually have a high success rate for rehabilitation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous I agree that defending yourself, children, other people or pets against an attacking dog is not abuse.

orangedog said...

Why can't it be both? Why is it always the owners and not the dogs as well? If it was just bad owners, attacks wouldn't be overwhelmingly one-sided. You'd see attacks coming from equally from all breeds. Pits don't have a lock on bad owners. Pits do attract a certain type of problem owner, but genetics are a huge component too.

Anonymous said...

OK, 'scuse me for being a fussy old bat, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why people choose a problematic, possibly lethal, divisive creature, as a pit bull. Loyalty is their most vehemently ascribed virtue, yet how fragile a person need you be, that the servility of a dog is so paramount? I'll confess that I'm dotty over poodles, a breed much ridiculed, yet, having been acquainted with many dozens as a groomer and owner, their civility, kindness, and gentleness, along with humor and intelligence, never fails to utterly charm and intrigue me. Are they loyal? My poodle, Ghengis, once absconded with the UPS man, apparently deciding that a road trip was more fun than watching me struggle with a 1-2-3 Simple sewing project. The UPS man brought him back, much annoyed, but we both ended up laughing.What are Poodles or any ordinary dog good for? Fun, laughter, connections, absurdity, affection. All the things that make us better and happier humans. Nobody that owns a pit bull seems to want simple companionship from a dog. My Mom's cleaning lady just told us about a woman biting off her pit bull's ear to stop it from murdering her child. She has a young pit bull. She seemed both excited and horrified by the telling.There are profoundly weird issues at play here in the interactions of pit bull and humanity, and I'm sometimes afraid to explore further

Anonymous said...

Orangedog. pits do attract the biggest mix of misguided owners. Most seem to have a criminal past, quite a few are antisocial, some are true psychopaths. Drug dealers, gang members, alcoholics..... Then those dogs get dumped into regular society and people who believe it's not the dog's fault take them in. Fido has been starved, beaten, encouraged to kill other animals and the new owner doesn't know this. Fido snaps and blood flies, and it's still a previous owners fault. Even the pit bulls who seem to have no lineage have to be traceable back to the breeds roots. Then you get dogs who are wired wrong, raised from a puppy by good, decent people who think the dogs are just pets. It's still not the fault of the dog, it's in the breeding somewhere, and again, that's a people fault, not a dog fault. It may be possible to somehow breed the problems out of pit bulls, but I don't think anyone's really willing to try. Since it is people who bred them for baiting and fighting it's always going to be people at fault.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 1:51 -

I agree with some of what you say, but this whole "pit bulls attack because they've been beaten and starved and abused" sounds a lot like what the naive pit mommies tell everyone every time a pit bull attacks. The fact is, the vast majority of the horrific pit bull attacks resulting in disfigurement of death has come from well behaved "family pit bulls", which were in many cases raised from puppies.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, abused pit bulls are not the ones attacking. It's confident, well fed pit bulls that are attacking. You never hear about dog fighters getting killed by their pit bulls, it's always the naive rescuers who don't understand why their beloved pibble turned on and did what pit bulls were created to do.

Anonymous said...

Dick, I actually said some of them attack because of their past. Some of it is just in their breeding, still making it human beings at fault for breeding them to begin with. I'm also the one who said Vick's former dogs seem to disprove the "it's all in how you raise them" myth. Those dogs were treated savagely, by any normal person's standards yet they're not attacking and killing people or other animals. More than likely those "family pit bulls" have come from some fighting lineage and when the instincts kick in a high price is paid. If people hadn't bred a dog just to fight we wouldn't be in this mess. Some people are lucky, they get a pit who never shows any signs of aggression, however, then they perpetuate the "how they're raised, nanny dog" myths. I feel bad for the dogs, it really isn't their fault they were created for a purpose that shouldn't have exsisted to begin with. They pay the price for what we made them. We pay the price for trying to make them pets.

tropical storms said...

With most dogs attacking because of life experience is a valid issue. Bulldogs (regardless of specific "breed") attack because their genetics have been directed, shaped and honed to this purpose. The bulldog most likely to attack is not the one most starved, abused or injured but rather the one feeling most confident, powerful and happy. Read what the dogmen had to say about dogs in keep. Most successful dogmen kept their charges well fed and left unattended on a chain when not in keep. Dogs given lots of time and attention, high quality protein rich food and a lot of exercise (like most modern day pet dogs) were the dogs most apt to bite you. Why, you ask? They are just following their genetic programming.

tropical storms said...

With most dogs attacking because of life experience is a valid issue. Bulldogs (regardless of specific "breed") attack because their genetics have been directed, shaped and honed to this purpose. The bulldog most likely to attack is not the one most starved, abused or injured but rather the one feeling most confident, powerful and happy. Read what the dogmen had to say about dogs in keep. Most successful dogmen kept their charges well fed and left unattended on a chain when not in keep. Dogs given lots of time and attention, high quality protein rich food and a lot of exercise (like most modern day pet dogs) were the dogs most apt to bite you. Why, you ask? They are just following their genetic programming.

Mom in Eugene said...

"Since it is people who bred them for baiting and fighting it's always going to be people at fault."

In this way, its true that it is a people problem, at its roots. People made them, people continue to breed them this way, people own them.
The dog ITSELF is also a problem, as it cannot be separated from its genes and its purpose.

I find the whole "owner or dog" argument disingenuous, and totally irrelevant, to solving the problem of attacks and killings. It's an interesting topic of conversation, but it irritates me to no end when conversations about BSL and other solutions are interrupted by this.

As if it matters! BOTH have the same solution- BANNING ownership.

RSM said...

I have a couple of young adult neighbors that have an obsession with knives and guns. They have an extensive collection of all manner of blades (too poor for guns, thanks god), and love anything that can shred a human.

They came over to show me a clip of a new high tech sniper rifle that uses laser and GPS guidance to shoot things a mile away. Pretty cool.

After a short conversation about what you could shoot with that, I showed them the "Loose Pit? Shoot On Site" graphic online. Perfect use of that gun, IMO. The girl was all "Awwww, but I wuv pits!". (the guy loved the graphics).

Recap: pointing a sniper rifle at people- great! Pointing a sniper rifle at a LOOSE pit bull? Poor pibbley wibbley, das so meeeannn!

OF COURSE.
Thankfully they are sticking to owning a cat.

Anonymous said...

Considering the official pibble greeting appears to be a light mauling (a heavy mauling if they're in a particularly fine mood), wuving a loose mauler seems a dangerous proposition. FEW people really hate animals enough to want to shoot them just for walking around. It is the pit bull's own behavior when loose that has cause people to feel they have no other choice.

Yeah, it is the owner's fault for not locking his mauler up where it can't get loose. And yeah, it's humans' fault for creating and 'enhancing' the breed (bread). But, the nutter's not out there chewing on your leg and the dogmen of olde aren't leaping for your face fangs first. No one wants a kinder, gentler pit bull. So, what we have now will probably get worse. It's the dogs. They are unpredictable. They lie with their body language. They kill without provocation wagging their tails in joy the whole time. Sometimes they can be sweet or funny or (in some people's eyes) cute. But, they are dangerous and their biggest fans LIKE that about them no matter what they say.

"dawn james" said...

i have fallen behind on these comments.

"Interesting... I haven't seen 'terrier' emphasized as much. I've seen 'bully', but with the American Bully coming out and their disdain for that dog (eyeroll), maybe that is ruining 'bully' for them. "

it usually goes something like this... "all terriers are animal aggressive!"
badrap and dawn capp play that card, a lot.

"dawn james" said...

"I think the dogmen should start putting tutus on their pits. It would be like Friday the 13th crossed with The Nutcracker. "

the blood on their faces would resemble the painted faces of clowns.

"dawn james" said...

"Depends... are all the inmates at the Supermax prison wearing tutus? Ya know, to soften their image."

lol orangedog! i was thinking the shoe in pelican bay

"dawn james" said...

""Clyde, I hate to see this but Devil's Spawn just unceremoniously removed FukUrShitUp's tutu.""

anon 9:55 too funny!

"dawn james" said...

re: that BFAS "dog" adoption thingee, fuck, it's 90% pit bulls!

"dawn james" said...

" I'm done trying to be politically correct. It will get you nowhere but hurt... "

spot on Dayna!

"dawn james" said...

"They're also letting their maulers mate with any other dog they can find in order to create a lot of mixes that are part pit bull. In other words, ruining other dogs. This is probably so when those dogs sink fang into some and give them a vigorous shaking, then the nutters can crow, "SEE! All dogs bite!!" Yes, they are such trash (many of them) they would do that.

People need to protect their unspayed female dogs! PARTICULARLY if they own a lab. "

this needs repeating as ugly gripping mutants are ruining dogs. i don't want any of that fucking DNA in my home, even if it is diluted.

"dawn james" said...

"We need to bring back mental institutions because prisons don't usually have a high success rate for rehabilitation."

you can have some success with sociopathy but you can't treat psychopathy. i remember a prison psychiatrist, in one of the scandanavian prisons saying and i am paraphrasing, "i have no illusions about treating psychopaths. i can only hope to make them behave a little better once they leave here."

"dawn james" said...

"Why can't it be both? Why is it always the owners and not the dogs as well? "

i agree. it's always both but it ultimately comes down to the sick humans who created them. what kind of monster breeds self preservation out of an animal?

also on the topic of the owner problem, i don't think that most of them are criminals. i do think that most of them suffer from a cluster B personality order or some other mental illness but not all of them have become a burden on the criminal justice system, in large part due to the fact that we rarely penalize people when there fighting bred dog flexes its DNA.

Anonymous said...

That's b.s. anyway.

But, at the same time, they'll pretend that they don't know how a mauler rips multiple layers of clothes off their victim. Even to pretending they believe the victim went outside (even in snow, even in a city) naked.

Terriers give their heads a quick shake when they bite something. Add tenancity, biting power, and a tendency to attack and...well...

I had a dog that was part terrier. It was a small, fluffy, UNAGGRESSIVE dogs. But, he gave his TOYS that little shake every time (toys, small items that were never alive, since IDK if nutters are sure about this). Because he had tiny teeth, he didn't tear his toys up despite playing with them a lot over years. I've seen 'cute' videos of pit bulls destroying a toy in a few minutes while nutters cheer the dogs on in comments. Gah, nutters are just so weird.

Anonymous said...

^-^

Anonymous said...

It's digusting and I think it is there way to hide their foul dogs and make sure they don't 'go extinct'. Also, their way to MAKE the rest of us deal with their mutants. Since they rarely ever spay or neuter their own dogs, they can up the percentage of mix dogs easily.

And if there is no way for the female dog's owner to know she got pregnant by a shitbull, so much the better.

Then there's the dogs themselves... granted, usually when they break into a house or fenced yard it is for the purpose of attacking something. But, there have to be times when they have different ideas in mind.

Anonymous said...

Would it even be possible to breed kinder more gentle pit bulls? How close it today's, mostly non-aggressive and really non threatening Boston terrier to the old pit fighting Boston Terrier? If we did it with them, could we do it with the pit bull? I'm not trying to be naïve just asking. I have seen the sweet, friendly pit bulls, but I've also seen cats after one gets hold of them. I really wouldn't mind people being able to keep a large, loyal dog, particularly as patient as pits seem to be, but we need to change the dog so it's not dangerous to anything else.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 1:43 -

"I really wouldn't mind people being able to keep a large, loyal dog, particularly as patient as pits seem to be"

The problem is not that pit bulls are not "patient". The bulk of horrific and unexpected pit bull attacks are coming from very "sweet" and "friendly" pit bulls.

The problem with pit bulls is quite breed specific, namely that of sudden, random, unpredictable violence. A pit bull can pass a temperament test, be friendly and docile, "turn on" and torture a victim to death, then be friendly and docile afterwards.

This is what causes so many idiots to be utterly deceived. It's as if they were to see an interview with serial killer Bundy, and become convinced that he must be innocent, because he could act civil and carry on a normal conversation.

Anonymous said...

So, Dick, can we breed the unpredictable behavior and aggression out of them? Seriously how close is today's Boston terrier to the ones they used to fight? The Boston now is usually sweet, friendly, pretty good with children, and too small to be a threat to animals. Can we do that with the pit? Most purpose bred dogs don't need the behavior bred out of them, such as beagles being hunting dogs. They can still be a safe and great pet. Pits do need their purpose bred out, if people are going to insist on keeping them as pets.

"dawn james" said...

just like the contemporary english bulldog/the original bull baiter, the boston terrier is a far cry from its original form. you could do that with any dog but then it becomes a new breed. and let's face it, the freaks who like pit bulls and amstaffs don't want a new breed. i've seen a lot of polls on the mutant forums and the majority ALWAYS votes to keep the ugly fucker in its current form.

Anonymous said...

That's a shame Dawn. Why do people want a dangerous dog, when they really could have a loving family pet? For the record, I like contemporary English bulldogs too, but they seem to suffer from massive health problems. Boston terriers luckily don't.
I think you mentioned the American bully, and those dogs scare me on sight. They're massive and all muscle. Usually I'm not a fan of breed bans, but in their case, they should NOT be allowed in any town or city. A dog that size with their lineage, can easily overpower even the strongest owner and maul and kill at will.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon -

Don't get me wrong, I like dogs of all sizes and temperaments, from neurotic little Chihuahuas to gentle Irish Wolfhounds, from yappy Yorkies to strong willed Akitas.

My problem with the pit bull is not its size or strength, but it's well-documented instability and unpredictability.

Could the pit bull be turned into something less dangerous and unpredictable? Theoretically, yes. But form follows function, and it would no longer be what we know as a pit bull. The fact is, the folks who keep breeding the mutants don't want them to be anything other than what they are.

Anonymous said...

How sad for the dogs, but mankind is often the true enemy of nature. Having lived with two pits before and knowing they can be sweet and loving, if oversized lap dogs, I find it very sad that decent people wouldn't want to breed the unpredictable aggressive and dangerous traits out of them. The dogs I lived with were fine, their owner wasn't. He never mistreated the dogs, but he did put his hands on me. I left because of him, not the dogs. I miss them, but not enough to go get a pit bull.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 5:24 -

True, pit bulls can be sweet and loving - in other words, they can act like normal dogs. But that is the crux of the problem.

This pit bull was sweet and loving for 8 years. Then it tore a baby boy apart. Then it was sweet and loving again.

I'll take a normal dog any day, even an ill tempered one, because I'll at least know where things stand. For me, there's just no upside to having a type of canine that has had the normal progression of canine warnings bred out of it, and can go from zero to a sustained attack to the death with no warning.

Anonymous said...

Beau's story is why I don't want a pit bull for myself. I have a six year old and don't want to risk his life. I hadn't realized when living with the pit bull owner how dangerous the dogs could be. Those pits never acted like they would hurt my son. The female growled once, when he jumped on the couch and hurt her. It went no further than that, and frankly a dog who growls is giving you a warning, I was smart enough to heed that warning. I removed my son from the situation without punishing either of them. The dog sought him out later to make up. Her growl was provoked and she was a good enough dog not to escalate it. For that, I'm grateful, now I know how much worse it could have been. I'll stick to predictable dogs for everybody's benefit.

By the way the owner was a heavy pot smoker and alcoholic. He hung out with other potheads, pill users, and coke heads. Most of his friends were ex-cons. He'd been arrested for pot and alcohol in his past. I guess he was a typical pit bull owner in that sense. I made the mistake of thinking he was ok, and then was stuck until I could come up with the resources to leave him. In the meantime, I was choked, shoved, and finally thrown into a stairway corner. He's facing charges now and probably doesn't see what he did as wrong. He is the definition of a narcissist.

Anonymous said...

There are terriers that aren't that aggressive. One of those might be as close as you can get to a 'kinder, gentler pit bull since pits do (sometimes) have some terrier traits.

Someone on a forum who had a pit bull said a boxer was a good dog for someone who wanted an athletic dog with a few things in common with pits. IDK, but it seems logical.

If I had magical powers and could make all pit bulls sweet and harmless (yet looking the same) instantly, I would. SOME people who own them would be delighted. Other people who own them would be pissed off and might even shoot the poor dog.

Anonymous said...

There's a video on here of a stupid pair of adults giggling as a toddler harasses a pit bull while it's chilling on the couch. The kid keeps grabbing the dog's feet... and I think all animals hate having their feet grabbed.

The kid is giggling. The adults are ignoring. And the pit is nudging the girl's hand away. Finally, it takes her hand in its mouth and moves it. The dog doesn't hurt the girl (which is a miracle, considering their teeth). I HOPE the fur mommy wised up after that and taught her daughter not to harass dogs.

Pit bulls aren't inherently evil. They're unpredictable. Just like that one was very patient and gentle with a child annoying it, there are others who have attacked for no reasonn. It is hard to say what makes it happen. The problem is, maybe it is a form of insanity and can't be fixed.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon -

for people who want something like a pit bull without the proclivity to sudden, random unpredictable violence, a boxer would be a pretty good compromise.

Boston Terriers are sort of like a mini pit bull without the downside.

Anonymous said...

I was shocked to see Kissy Face. For a pit bull, she looks really sweet. Look at her eyes. But, then we know what she did. And even the Rutledges' neighbors say KF was trained and well behaved, and that they walked her frequently.

Anonymous said...

Dick, thanks for that information. I know someone who has a Boston Terrier, LOL. She was such a hyper little puppy.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon -

BTW I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the idea that a small child hurt a pit bull. Annoyed, possibly.

I've seen a pit bull bent on tearing a victim apart, and a grown man hitting it with a baseball bat didn't slow it down at all.

So, the idea that a small child could accidentally hurt a pit bull seems improbable to me.

Anonymous said...

Regarding that video, those parents should be caned. They're stupid to allow a child to do that to any kind of dog. My kids were taught not to provoke dogs, and when my son jumped on the couch that day, he was being a brat.
I'd consider a bull terrier, a boxer, or a Boston, or even an English bulldog for a pet. I'll pass on pits and pit mixes, again, I value my little boy's life. I value having neighbors who like me and my son. I value people's right to safety, and to have their own pets be safe. I do also value an animal who could protect my son and myself or at least scare off an intruder.

"dawn james" said...

anon 6:24, here's the video the mentioned.

Dick Johnson said...

For large protective dogs, I like Akitas and Great Pyrenees

Anonymous said...

Akitas aren't considered safe with children, so they're not on my list of dogs to consider. My sister has a Great Pyrenees/yellow lab mix. She's a wonderful dog, but since I don't want to clean thick mounds of dog hair, they also don't make my list. Maybe a Doberman, they are protective but when raised right are good with children and don't automatically threaten everyone they come in contact with. Looking up the bull terrier, they need a strong leader but don't seem to have the problems pits do. When the time is right for us to get a dog, it will be one I can trust not to tear my son apart while I take a shower. It will be one that wouldn't bite without serious provocation and is honestly good with kids. I might go really small and get a shit-Tzu, they have to be groomed but they're sweet and will alert you to strangers. It will not be something that scares my neighbors, or keeps kids from coming to my place to play.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 7:13 -

It's all relative, I suppose. My criteria aren't the same as yours, but that's fine, we all have different situations. Good luck on your search for the best type of dog.

Anonymous said...

There's nothing wrong with wanting a dog with a shorter coat, to love and who can protect us if needed. One with a good temperament who likes kids, and does well with other animals. One that won't attack for no reason. Thank you, Dick. We'll find the right dog, and it may prove to be a watchdog, and not a big one. My first love was a beagle, given to me on my eighth birthday. My oldest sister had taken in a stray the spring before who had distemper. Sadly my pup wasn't vaccinated before we got him, and we had to have him put down. I know my son would be fine with one so they're on my list of possible dogs. I do plan to adopt, the one thing pit lovers and I agree on is adopting is the better option. I refuse to support a puppy mill or backyard breeder.

Anonymous said...

I don't mean the child hurt the pit bull. I mean the child irritated the pit bull by grabbing its feet. The child didn't understand the dog did not like that. But, she wasn't hurting the dog even a little. I was worried that the dog could easily hurt her. It didn't, but pit bulls are a dog with a lot of muscle and teeth. So, it is a miracle the baby wasn't hurt

Anonymous said...

Oh, I realize you're probably talking about the boy on the couch mentioned by the other Anonymous. I wonder if he just startled the dog more than anything causing her to growl. If it was just a quick, 'hey, watch it' kind of growl then maybe that isn't a big thing, IDK.

It seems to me that when pit bulls are lying down somewhere, they feel they have claimed that area and don't want anyone suddenly being in their space. I don't think the person has to hurt them for them to react in some way. Of course, some of the reaction... a growl, pushing a baby's hand aside... are not harmful. Maybe they are more than some other dogs would do though. Then sometimes they over react by, oh, straight up murdering the person who caught their eye at a certain moment. Some people, I think, try to work around the dog's mood.. but, that only works with some of them.

People can and should teach their children to be mindful of how to treat animals just out of respect for another being. I think Anonymous did talk to her son. I HOPE the people in the video talk to the toddler. Especially if they keep a dog that

I saw a video of a child bugging the crap out of a collie. It kept gently licking her hand, but you could tell that it really wanted to be left alone. Meanwhile mom is egging the kid on to mess with the dog's face and everything else.

Then I saw a dumbass had a little boy jump all over a rottweiler. The kid tried to give up, but they wanted him to bounce all over the dog. It was to prove to I don't know who that rottweilers are gentle. But, all it proved to me was some idiot cared more about proving a stupid point than what his dog and the little kid wanted to do.

I do wonder sometimes if nutters egg their kids on to do weird things with pit bull... get all in their faces, lay on them, STAND on them, pull on them... stuff I don't think anyone should do with a dog. Well, there are sometimes legit reasons to check a dog's mouth, but a little kid would not be doing that.

My pet absolutely can't hurt me, but I am respectful of him because he is a living being. I love him and don't really need to prove things to detractors. Also, his fuzzy head could never support a hefty toddler

Anonymous said...

I remember talking to you before about dogs...

It was smart of you to educate your son. Little kids just don't know unless taught. The dog will usually like a kid who knows how to act better, too.

There's always golden retrievers and labs. Of course, you have to be cautious not to get one tainted by pibble.

Oh, and then there are poodles. There is a medium size. Poodles are fun because they learn tricks very easily.

But, I am certainly not dog expert. I've only ever owned two dogs. LOL

Anonymous said...

Thanks for linking it up. ^-^

Anonymous said...

My sister's husky was very protective, but not dangerous. But, I have heard they can be weird with very small children

tropical storms said...

WTF! I grew up with dogs specifically bred and trained as guard dogs. GSD who could easily do significant damage but were trusted not to act out. They were completely safe with family, friends and anyone allowed in. It NEVER occurred to our parents to instruct us on how to behave with the dogs, they were required and expected to be family and people safe unless required to protect us from someone. At one point in time humans were not fearful or wary of their own dogs because fighting breeds were had almost exclusively by dog fighters.

Anonymous said...

Shih-tzu live a really long time. I don't think they are too hard to groom as long as you brush them every day. I had a friend who had one, but it was very old by then. It was cute and a good dog.

Anonymous said...

There are people having their kids do INSANE things with dogs now for YouTube or FB.

And really little kids just don't know some basic things. I don't mean much instruction... just a couple of pointers to be nice to the dog. It never was a concern that the dog might bite. But, if the kid is a brat to the dog maybe the dog won't play with the kid, that's all.

With normal dogs, it's politeness. But, if these nutcases are going to keep cujo as a pet, they might want to up their diligence.

With fighting breeds, I am not sure anyone can ever be careful enough. They seem to just go nuts sometimes. And a lot of times, no one is doing anything to them.

Anonymous said...

When I was a child, we went to visit my aunt who had a daushund. My cousins told me tales of how mean this dog was.

Since I was already nervous about some dogs due to almost being attacked by a mean bulldog, my parents asked my aunt about her dog.

So, she explained to me her dog wasn't mean, she was just old. And that she'd never bother me if I left her alone. I'd never been around an old housedog at that point in my life.

Sure enough, the daushund mostly wanted to sleep in her basket by my aunt's feet. But, not long after I arrived, she came over and sat down by me. My aunt said that meant she liked me. So, from then on, I could pet her.

But, my aunt telling me two quick little things totally changed my experience with the dog from that of my cousins'. (BTW, I don't think my cousins were hurting the dog, they were just trying to play with her.)

If I'd been a little older, I would have been able to figure this stuff out without her mentioning it. Now, it is kind of funny because the worst thing the dog ever did was cause my boy cousin to wear a small bandaid for a short while. But, she gave him a lot of warnings before she did that.

Anonymous said...

The most insane thing nutters do is call us all "haters" and accuse us of "spewing hate" and every other variation of "hate". I even saw someone accused of "Satanic hate". This is insane and I do not even know the proper psychological classification for it.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that are easily capable of killing people.

THEY own FIGHTING dogs that are easily capable of MAIMING people including AMPUTATING LIMBS.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that will KILL their boon companions while wagging their tails in joy.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that KILL other people's pets.. pets that people LOVE and that have harmed NO ONE.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that they REFUSE to spay and neuter so the selfsame dogs can spread their DNA to other animals owned by people who DO NOT WANT fighting dogs.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that they lie and claim are BABYSITTERS, NANNY DOGS, and (amazingly)parents of young children go and get the "nanny dogs".

THEY will take that back the SECOND a child is harmed and blame everyone and thing EXCEPT THE DOG as if the dog were a photocopy machine rather than a living being.

THEY come onto pages for VICTIMS including people who have JUST LOST family members and RANT about their STUPID FIGHTING DOGS.

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that they allow their children and other children to crawl all over without regard to the fact that the dog really might not like and it that it sets a bizarre expectations in the mind of a child (most dogs cannot endure someone standing on their heads).

THEY own FIGHTING DOGS that they WILL NOT FUCKING CONTAIN and so the DOGS go onto people's land and MURDER their pets, their livestock, their GRANDMOTHER, their GRANDDAUGHTER.

I am sorry for the caps and as you all know there are more and more and more examples.

They are about to force everyone to do exactly what ought to be done the moment dog fighting was made illegal and that is KILL ALL THE FIGHTING DOGS. No one really wants to do this, but these dogs are KILLING humans, animals, and screwing up normal dogs through mating and overproduction.

THEY DID THIS. We didn't. THEY AREN'T FIXING IT. They're making it worse.

Their mutants see EVERY LIVING THING as prey, and will gleefully tear anyone/any animal limb from limb.

And the nutters, thinking their wiggle butts are so loyal.. I bring it back over and over..watch them being dragged off by AC (AuC), many times they are delighted to go. Shockingly, no matter what the dog has done, there are sometimes psychopath members of AuC who love on the dog like they just got a new pet.

Oh, sorry, I'm filled with hate what with my worry that someone could be mauled to death by some worthless mongrel. Or someone's nice pet could get chewed up by a vicious inbred monster. Or that someone's farm animals will be seriously depopulated because some SELFISH OWNER let their vicious canine loose to do what it would since they like to think of their mauler as being "descended from wolves" and their mutant chewing up someone's livestock is the next best thing to having a mighty wolf alpha of olde. You know, like in the movies or on TV shows.

Meanwhile, asking them to keep their worthless mauler ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY just causing them to say things like they're a pit bull mama and they will kill anyone who takes their dog, rather than addressing simple request of keeping their dog on their own property and OFF OF OURS.

If they would take the simple step of keeping their maulers on their own property and under control, they might be amazed at how the reputation of the maulers increases. With the 24 hour news cycle, if pit bulls stop mauling then the media will forget all about them.

scorched earth said...

^^ Amen Anon 4:57! ^^

Thank you for your common sense!

Anonymous said...

When my son jumped on the couch, he was mad at me and trying to throw a fit. That's why I said he was being a brat. Gracie was sound asleep and he startled and possibly hurt her. She's eight years old, with an old hip injury from a birth defect. I believe most dogs would've given warning in that case. At any rate, she had the decency to growl, not bite. I did talk to him. I told him, he shouldn't hurt or scare ANY dogs. Dogs rather they give warning or not only have one defense eventually, and that's to bite.
When he was smaller and my daughter still lived with us, we tapped his hands and told him no for pulling her lab/beagles mixes ears and tail. To this day, that dog adores him, because he treats her right. I think it's cruel to animals to let kids mistreat them, that includes jumping over them and standing on them.
My niece has a pit bull and I'm sure it's a disaster waiting to happen. She has two small boys who feel free to pull ears, tails, and hair. They'll chase dogs with their toys, jump over them, smack them, run over them with toys. Everything you shouldn't do to dogs they do. I don't know where the dog came from either, my guess is a backyard breeder. When this dog bites, she and my sister will blame the dog and get rid of it. They'll either dump or rehome it. It won't be the dogs fault, it'll be their fault for letting the boys mistreat all animals. They got rid of their cat because she kept scratching the boys when they tried to pick her up by the tail. I'm just using them as an example of it being people at fault, directly or indirectly when dogs bite. In their case the excuses are "typical two year old". and with the other brat, "he's just a baby". They laughed Christmas day when one of the boys hit another sister's dog with a toy vacuum and he tried to bite the toy. Then looked upset when we all told them to control the damn kids.

"dawn james" said...

"But, I am certainly not dog expert. I've only ever owned two dogs. LOL "

that's the nice thing about NORMAL or "cur" dogs. you don't have to be an expert to safely own one.

"dawn james" said...

"With fighting breeds, I am not sure anyone can ever be careful enough. They seem to just go nuts sometimes. And a lot of times, no one is doing anything to them. "

anon 12:28, i would love to have been a fly on the wall when Gunner went pit bull on pregnant darla napora.

Richard M "Dick" Johnson said...

@anon 6:09

Appreciate you giving dogs every benefit of the doubt. But something just doesn't add up with the huge disparity in serious attacks between torturer dogs and normal breeds.

For instance, in the 32 years that Merritt Clifton has been tracking dog attacks, there has not been a single disfiguring or fatal attack on a human by an Irish Setter. Good owners, bad owners, well trained, poorly trained, untrained, well treated, poorly treated, regardless of circumstance, zero disfiguring or fatal attacks.

On the other hand, there are disfiguring or fatal attacks on humans by pit bulls every day, and again, it doesn't matter if they were good owners, bad owners, whether the dogs were trained or untrained, whether they were bought from a shelter or raised from puppies.

No common denominator has been found, other than breed. Let the implications of that sink in.

Despite what you've been told by the promoters of torturer dogs, breed is the single most significant determinant of risk.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Scorched Earth. ^-^

Sometimes when I read a fresh case of mauler mayhem and nutter psychopathy, narcissim, and condescending immaturity, I just cannot believe THEY have the unmitigated gall to call us 'haters'. They do not even begin to appreciate how much people have bent over backwards desperately trying to be fair.

But, they're not fair. So, they'll rail, whine, cry, and threaten if we do anything short of adopting five maulers of our own (absolutely out of the question) and posting the little slogans they like everywhere. Therefore, we may as well do what we really want.

Anonymous said...

I read her female pit bull was found trembling with fear in another room. OF COURSE, some nutter skipped over the fact Gunnar had just murdered Darla and blamed Darla for the female being scared (or whatever dog emotion was making her tremble). I was shocked by that since it proved they will blame the victim for everything! including blaming her for a dog being afraid AFTER she died.

herzeleid said...

@anon 11:03

It's noteworthy that the "good" pit bull was found cowering in another room.

These folks often claim to have pit bulls "for protection", but if the best their female pit bull could do was cower in another room while "gunner" tore Darla to pieces, what's the point?

So the real question is, if you have a pit bull for protection, who will protect you from your pit bull?

Pit Dispatcher said...

"They are about to force everyone to do exactly what ought to be done the moment dog fighting was made illegal and that is KILL ALL THE FIGHTING DOGS."

SIGN ME UP. I am happy to do my part. Just got a nice new Machete.

I have HAD IT with the killing and mayhem of these worthless beasts.

Anonymous said...

Some nutter was recently whining about her daughter being bitten by a mini pin while her pit bull 'just sat there' (this was supposed to prove the non violence of it). And I said a pit bull could protect a kid from a mini pin just by standing in between the kid and it. So, I suppose it can only protect the owner from something even smaller? A mouse? A drawing of a mouse?

There are a other cases where the owner is mauled by vicious pibble while its pibble pal hides, wets itself, and cries until rescued by humans.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 11:33

I know of one case in a multi-dog house where the Rottweiler flipped out and attacked an adult who lived there. The Akita, seeing this, killed the Rottweiler, stopping the attack.

ISNY

Anonymous said...

It is what they think we want to do. I don't think it is most people's first choice, but..

when an old lady can't even feed her cat or a little kid can't even play in his/her own front yard or a harmless pet can't even sit in his own house or livestock can't even safe in a barn/in a fenced meadow... what can we do? When they're letting their mutants rape labs to ruin that much beloved breed... what can we do?

When at least two able-bodied women were ripped to shreds setting out their trash... what can we do? When they continue to insist the things as 'nanny dogs' because SOMETIMES they don't bite, but oh when they do a tiny child either dies or faces decades or painful surgeries.. what can we do?

When they will not/cannot contain their maulers... what can we do? When the 'feelings' of their dogs (who continue not to be able to read) are put over the lifeblood of people and animals we need and love... what can we do? When they reject even the mildest form of BSL out of pure selfishness... what can we do?

When they shut down all discussion by attacks, deflection, and the insistence that we assume all pit bulls are JUST LIKE their pet... why are we even trying to talk to them?

Anonymous said...

That's good. I am glad the Akita was able to do that.

From what I understand, even though it is an aggressive breed and used for dog fighting, that breed hasn't been screwed up like pit bulls.

Also, they police themselves. An Akita in Arizona mauled someone around the time Mickey mauled Kevin. The Akita was pts. I don't know anything else about the case, but to me it shows an effort toward keeping the breed safe as possible. They aren't a suitable dog for everyone, but Akita owners aren't making everyone deal with them.

Recently in the U.S., I think they've been fighting Akita. (I know they've been fought before that.) But, I don't think they're at the point pit bulls are which is selfish people have screwed up the dogs and let the dogs terrorize neighborhoods until we're really going to have to do something.

Now and then I'll read about an Akita out running loose, but not often at all.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and what does

ISNY mean?

I tried to look it up, but... I still don't know. haha

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 12:08 -

I agree, Akitas are definitely not for everyone, and legitimate Akita breeders will screen would be adopters and actively discourage those who don't seem to be qualified. Fortunately Akitas aren't obscenely over bred like pit bulls.

They are tough, primitive dogs, but I see important differences between them and the torturer breeds. Although they tend to be animal aggressive, it's more of a desire to be dominant as opposed to the pit bulls drive to kill.

An important distinction IMHO is that I've never heard of a case of an Akita killing his owner, while there are scores of such cases on record for pit bulls.

While you occasionally see reports of someone being bitten by an Akita, note that #1 it's a bite, not a sustained attack, and #2 such attacks generally involve strangers, not family members.

Re the acronym: forgive the dyslexia - I meant to type "ISYN" - which means "honest injun".

Anonymous said...

Richard, I'm really not trying to give the dogs the benefit of the doubt. I have seen pit bulls before and after killing animals. One was vicious but because it hadn't attacked humans, nothing was being done about it. The dog got loose all the time and quite often killed stray cats in the trailer park where we lived. Every time it got out police were called about it running loose. A neighbor was awakened by one of the owners screaming at it, not by the noise of the dog attacking her pet. I called the police and bitched, it was the third week of summer vacation and this was the fifth time the dog had gotten out. I knew that dog was dangerous. In typical pit bull fashion, the dog greeted the police officers with a wagging tail and kisses. The landlord finally got tired of the residents complaining and they gave the dog to someone in the country. I've heard conflicting stories since then. Either he's fine and happy or he was shot and is dead. The guy who claims he shot him has his own pit bull. Tank, is the mauler's name. He hit a door and got out killing another cat in another neighborhood. Then, last fall, he broke his chain and chased a cat across a street and killed it. Sicko owner laughs about how since the leash law applies to cats too, the city can't do anything. He also brags about how Tank greeted the cops and acted like the perfect dog right after it happened. If you didn't know the stories, you'd never know Tank was cat killer, he acts like the sweetest dog on earth, with people. He has also attacked other dogs but so far they've been big enough, or the owners have been quick enough to prevent serious damage. Need I add, he "just loves people, especially kids"?
In the case of Gracie growling, I really do believe most dogs could react the same way to being woke up from a sound sleep. When it comes to my great-nephews, they do terrorize animals and should never be around them. A pit bull with those kids is a recipe for disaster, and since their mom and grandma would rather play on their phones than correct the kids, they will be the ones at fault.

Anonymous said...

Them maulers have somthing wrong with there brains one of my families neighbors has three of them.... things and always goes on about how sweet they are and that they are big babies. Well they tore, not killed, tore up an entire litter of kittens they where fine with and seriously injured there non pit dog and they are actually DEFENDING them. That is a phychopath (did I spell that right?) in my opinion. On top of that these people are moving into my sick mothers neighborhood into a house with NO FENCE.
Ugh, now THAT is a pit nutter. By the way the dog that was injured they had way longer than the preciouse pibbles and will probably die because of there ignorence, yet another fine example of why I hate these dogs.

Dick Johnson said...

@anon 5:08

My blood boils. My fondest hope is that there is a special place of torment reserved for the nutters who bring torturers into an environment with normal dogs and other innocent animals, or bring innocent animals into a torturer environment.

Anonymous said...

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Mickey-the-pit-bull-arrives-at-sheriffs-shelter-257591571.html Mickey has his new forever home. Is this the future for dogs who maul people? I'm shaking my head in disbelief. I still think the owners were partly at fault, having a dog they knew was dangerous chained in an unfenced yard. It doesn't take a genius to know 1+1=2, my six year old knows more than that.h

RSM said...

Anonymous said-
"It is what they think we want to do. I don't think it is most people's first choice, but.."

This is right on.
I MUCH prefer BSL. From bans (my fav) to S/N.
I MUCH prefer laws that hold owners (of all dogs) 100% accountable for their dogs actions, both financially, and criminally.
I MUCH prefer that existing maulers are well contained and kept away from the public.
I MUCH prefer laws that PTS animals the FIRST time they are aggressive, without all the ridiculous court nonsense.
I HATE that it has come down to individuals needing to kill pits, there are so many easier ways to deal with this problem.

I would rather just go for a walk in peace, unarmed, without worrying about pits.


Another great comment, worth repeating:
"So the real question is, if you have a pit bull for protection, who will protect you from your pit bull?"

Anonymous said...

Yes. Although maulers do a lot (lot, lot, lot) of damage IF there are some out there that aren't crazy (or sick or whatever), then I don't really want to punish them as well. But, then on the other hand, people over animals.

Breeders worked for years to make dogs safer since people didn't really want their family pet killing the family (no, not even 100 years ago did they wish this). But, dog fighters were off on their own... going the opposite way. This wasn't so bad when they kept their dogs contained.

When the dogs leaked out to the public, became over bred, and got a marketing campaign, this current mess started. It gets worse by the way, driven by the fact that pit bull have huge litters and live a long time. Also, by the fact there are morons breeding them fearing pit bulls will 'go extinct' if they don't. I read a page explaining to nutters there were many pit bulls in the world and they're not likely to go extinct.

I don't think, even if we deliberately try to make that happen, it's possible. Although some of the morons trying to breed them and getting such high levels of inbreeding could eventually cause some not to survive long. But, there are plenty of people who did graduate high school who will try it again with another pair of mutants.

tropical storms said...

Keep in mind that 100 years ago, 50 years ago, even 30 years ago people had purpose bred working dogs to do they jobs for which they were bred. Some like retrievers, setters and spaniels became popular because they are good all around family dogs. Most working dogs NEED a job. They are not really happy without the ability to express their genetic programming so most don't make the best house pets. I think it's terribly selfish and self indulgent to get a dog because you like it's looks with no thought to the needs of the animal or the long term comfort and well being of everyone involved.

Anonymous said...

People who keep working dogs confined are asking for an unhappy dog at the very least. Working dogs have tremendous energy and they really do like to work. If they get adequate food, rest, shelter, and companionship from the humans they are working for then they are happy.

Pit bulls (and the like) are a certain very weird category of working dogs, imo. Their job is obsolete in most people's view.

However, many of these dogs are merely held as pets. But, they remain working dogs that were purpose bred. And like all working dogs, their purpose calls for them. And their gameness makes them very, very competitive.

They have the working breed drawback as well as the fighting dog drawback. They are perhaps sometimes good dogs in the right hands, but most people have no business in owning one.

The pit pimpers are doing a disservice to the public AND THE DOGS by allowing some of the things they do and putting out some of the doublespeak messages they do. There are flat out too many pit bulls right now and many of them are very badly bred dogs.

If the Dogmen of Olde (a.k.a. not that long ago, really, but whatever) were allowed to cull at will, people might get some surprises which dogs they picked.

Since the Dogmen wanted dogs that could fight, these weird lumps would be GONE as well as their progeny. Some of the ones they would keep would be mean as hell, but they would be kept carefully contained on a chainset away from civilization until their appointed time behind the scratch line.

Some people are in denial thinking if they're sweet to their dog or follow some rules then their dog will love them and never hurt them. But, even people who were careful have found that is not enough. And most people are not careful. Some mean to be, but they make mistakes. They don't realize their dog, their sweetie, their pal is UNPREDICTABLE in the extreme. Or they know and they just do not care.

There is a video of a near dogfight.. it is a pit bull (a small one) and a rottweiler. A girl has the pit, a guy has the rot.

Well, the dogs have some dominance thing going. He gets his dog to lay down, but she notices the dogs continue to stare at each other. The whole time, she has her leash firmly in hand and her feet planted.

Then the rottweiler decides to growl at the pit, well the guy pulls his dog back immediately. But, the pit pulls the girl off her feet and pulls her a short distance in his attempts to get at the rot. The guy apologizes and takes his dog away.

All of the lunges before the last one weren't for real, so she believed she could handle her dog. But, when it went for real, she was just along for the ride (I will say, she clung to that leash so she was trying).

Used to be, people dealt with animals more and realized many animals are MUCH stronger than they look. Now, I think some people really believe their dog will always obey them and let them pull it away from a situation. Which is unrealistic.

"dawn james" said...

i saw that video just recently. and the OBSOLETE is perfect for pit bulls.

tropical storms said...

Beautifully put Anonymous, I couldn't have said it better myself. Read the stories of Gr. Ch. Zebo and Ch. Chinaman for good insight into the care and keeping of man fighters. The professional dogmen did know how to contain even the most dangerous of their dogs. They are truly a single purpose working breed who's job is a crime in every civilized country on earth.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Tropical Storms. ^-^

I have read about Zebo. I need to read up on Chinaman.

I wanted to ask you, when the dogmen guaranteed their dog was 'game'... what satisified the guarantee?