Thursday, April 17, 2014

welcome new bloggers

Animals 24-7

Dangerous Dogs in the News

not new but from the EXCELLENT blog of dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips:

Using a Gun In Self-Defense Against a Dog

Defending oneself with a gun against an attacking dog is a serious issue. Detroit has a police chief who openly supports using a gun in self-defense. Most of the time, it's a burglar who is shot.

Burglars take property or money, not cheeks, scalps or lives. An attacking dog may want your life. Using a gun to stop an attack could be not only reasonable but necessary in some circumstances.

In a case I am handling, the victim fought the pit bull for 10 minutes, with its teeth crushing her larynx for about 5 minutes. The man who tried to rescue her during those 5 minutes was hitting the dog with a piece of wood, but could not make it release her. He left and called 911.

She died. If he had a gun and was confident using it, she certainly would have lived. (The victim was Claudia Gallardo, and the preliminary hearing for the dog owner, Brian Hrenko, begins on April 24, 2014. The would-be rescuer of Ms. Gallardo was very brave, in my opinion, and nothing herein should be interpreted as criticism of him. People have been killed when trying to rescue pit bull victims. Based on what I know, he did all he could.)

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

YEA, this IS a criticism of the would be rescuer. In case the poor guy is reading this, I'll try to save him from a life of thinking "If only I had a gun" by saying the following.

Having a gun and knowing how to use it is NO GUARANTEE you can dispatch a pit bull quickly.

Ask any of the officers who shot Niko.

OH yeah, he would have had better odds, but "She certainly would have been alive" is a crock of shit thrown directly in this guys face.

Anonymous said...

9mm ammunition doesn't cut it with pitbulls.

Anonymous said...

The man tried his very best to save Claudia. And he might have even owned a gun, but if IIRC he was outside and heard her scream and ran to see what was happening. He immediately found himself in a life or death situation. He tried to save her and snatched the best weapon immediately at hand.

He had NO TIME to get a better weapon than the board he used and he probably thought it would be more than adequate. If a dog has a woman's throat in its mouth, there is NO TIME for getting better weapons even if you have one only across the street or next door.

Not everyone carries a loaded gun every minute and not even every gun owner has a gun that can kill those hideous mutant dogs. Most people do not know this.

A .22 pistol has killed MANY humans. So, a lot of people will think something of this nature will work against most intruders (many of whom will run if they see another person anyway). Most dogs will run if a person even yells at them, let alone if someone smacks them with a board.

And then, not everyone is good with guns (I don't mean the man who tried to help Claudia, for all I know he could be an expert at handling guns). If a person isn't good with a gun and a dog is attacking someone like this one was, they could hurt or kill the victim. But, overall, if a person isn't good with guns they are better off without one against humans because a human could disarm them and kill them with their own weapon.

I guess everyone has to re-evaluate things since it's getting blindingly obvious that some places leave people to sort out their own problems with dogs no matter if it is a type of dog that can easily kill an adult human. People will have to train on large caliber handguns and train at shooting dogs (specifically blocky-skulled dogs like pit bulls... not just them, but it seems if one could kill them then a more wolfy type dog would be easier to hit). And people will have to carry because who knows when someone will decide to let their maulers run free. Who knows when hearing a scream and running to see what's wrong can lead to a horrible scene like this.

I really think, sadly, it would have required more than one person to save Claudia. The guy tried his very best, but that dog was already killing her before he even got there. I'm not sure if even a gun would've helped if that's all he had because the dog had her throat in its mouth. It needed to be made to let go of her first. Just being killed might have made it bite down harder as it died which also would have killed Claudia.

Anonymous said...

Oh, it says he left to go call 911... I thought he got his wife to do that while he continued to fight the dog. I must have him confused with another situation.

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

I, in particular, like where Kenneth Phillips is coming from. I'm an advocate of conceal carry and scenario training. In a situation where a pit bull is relatively immobile because of its grip on a victim, I earnestly believe I could safely move in and stop a pit bull with one shot from a .22, .380, 9mm, .40, .45, 38, .357 or otherwise. I would immediately concede there are a number of scenarios where an incoming or moving pit bull would be difficult to dispatch, but a firearm would still be my weapon of choice in every case.

Like any shooting forum, we could go round and round about calibers, ammo, weapons, best barrel lengths, vital areas and every factor that could possible come into play, but I remain convinced and in Phillips’ corner regarding the value of a firearm to stop a pit bull attack.

Eventually we have to consider the overall relevance of our discussions about firearms. Not everybody can or will carry a firearm. Children can’t carry a firearm. Disabled people and the very elderly wouldn’t generally be good candidates for defensive firearms training. And these potential victims can’t count on being in proximity to anyone who is qualified to safely defend them every minute of the day.

In the end, the only appropriate answer to suit all of us is threat management. Our nanny government needs to do its damn nanny job and quit sucking its policy agendas from the teats of special interests who advocate for murdering canines. Those who can’t defend themselves in any scenario are the ones who matter – not spectacularly dangerous breeds of ugly fighting dogs.

BSL IS THE ANSWER

Anonymous said...

I understand where he is coming from.... overall, I think he is right.

So, where would you shoot one with a .22 pistol?

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

"where would you shoot one with a .22 pistol?"

Point blank in the top of the head. I wouldn't be afraid of a heart shot either. Or just dump a whole magazine into it for your own satisfaction. There's no such thing as overkill when it has to be dead ASAP. Try shooting a 22lr round like the 32 grain CCI Stinger at 1640 fps into a thick phone book. Wow. Poachers regularly use rounds like these to drop deer along roadsides for a quick kill and low report. Because of all the threatened legislation and hoarding right now, it's been next to impossible to get them.

I use this ammo scanner to build my 22lr supply: http://www.wikiarms.com/

Anonymous said...

For a .22 or other small caliber... What I was thinking with a dog was you'd have to be over it and shoot down straight into its head. That is scary to even think about.

THANK GOD people in this area still are liking hounds as pets (with the occasional retriever or herding dog thrown in for variety).

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the information for the .22

Animal Uncontrol said...

I agree with the Dude. While a firearm is not a perfect solution, its a HELL of a lot better than nothing. As he also indicated, while shooting a dog that is charging you is problematic, again its better than nothing but primarily, it gives you a huge advantage while trying to save someone else.

RE: Gun to use. The FBI did some studies years ago and they found that among all the pistol calibers, the .357 magnum had the highest incidence of "one shot stops". So, statistically speaking that is the best HANDgun to use.

Shotgun and rifle rounds typically have a lot more energy I them as opposed to pistol rounds, but you would get some strange looks walking your dog with an AK47 or AR10 slung over your shoulder... again, probably best for home defense and protecting someone else.

The stories we hear about the super mauler that took 8-12 rounds to drop are outliers, if not outright exaggerations - I have shot various varmints myself and I find it exceptional that ANYTHING could take a couple of rounds of even, say, 9mm hollowpoint to the center of body mass and still be fully effective, which brings up the point that its as much or more about shot placement as opposed to caliber or number of rounds.

Anonymous said...

Well, this is partly what I'm saying... most people aren't thinking about shooting a dog and how that would vary from shooting other things. If AC is going to be the pit bull social worker, then we have to figure out how to handle pibble. They're weirdly put together animals.

The XL mutant that had to be shot so many times... three rounds were through a window. Then the cops come through the door and it is rampaging through the apartment. They may not have been able to get that great of shots at it just depending on whether anything obstructed their view or whatever. But, these factors will sometimes come into play with even a more sensibly sized mauler.

Then, for example, we know the much smaller pit bull female Khloe was in there somewhere. IDK if she was hiding or what, but she didn't attack and she wasn't shot either. But, there are many cases where there's an extra dog that is one more thing to worry about. Whether you intend to shoot it or not, you have to be mindful that it is there somewhat and you don't know what it might do (attack, try to escape, whatever).

snarky said...

a good head shot with a baseball bat will work too ....guys .

"dawn james" said...

C. final answer

"Or just dump a whole magazine into it for your own satisfaction."

this appeals to me but only if i have a second magazine for the nutter.

Dick Johnson said...

@"dawn james" 8:42 -

That is an astute observation. The nutters often pose as much a threat as their maulers, and must be taken into account in any plan for defending yourself or your animal companions from the mauler.

Dick Johnson said...

@snarky 6:35

I fear a baseball bat would likely just prove another way to earn a life flight. In too many cases, a baseball bat has proved ineffective against an attacking mauler in the zone.

Guns work best, knives have also been show to work. I wouldn't trust a baseball bat, but I do carry a 4 lb sledgehammer with a nasty pointed end, which if swung determinedly would definitely cause sufficient trauma to stop a pit bull attack.

april 29 said...

@Dude

"There's no such thing as overkill when it has to be dead ASAP." LOL!!


@Animal Uncontrol
I favor the .357 magnum as well but I can't conceal it. Just do not have the body size for it. The .38 special is the everyday carry gun and I have to hope for the best.

Mom in Eugene said...

Knives work great, but you are gonna get injured if its YOU thats being attacked. A 6-9" blade, razor sharp, is necessary, and cane save your life. I prefer the time tested Bowie style, and it's not illegal to carry like a double edged would be.

You could kill a pit attacking some one/thing else with a kitchen knife, or even a pocket knife, but when YOU are attacked, you will be lucky to get in one good cut/slice/stab. It is amazing how fast you lose your motor sills and are incapacitated.

I got 2 blows in, and was very lucky that my position just happened to make fatal cuts possible.
If you are on the ground, with the dog on top/above you, and up the belly slice and twist will be your best bet, and across the neck if you can get in a second one. If you can do more, well, great, but I find that unlikely.

FYI- You will still get mauled right up until it actually drops dead, and you may have to pry its jaw to get it off (or cut the muscles). People watch to much TV, and don't realize that the fight doesn't just stop when a knife is used. If a deer can run for 100 yards after its shot in the heart, from a standstill, what do you think a pit can do in the 2 minus it takes to bleed out?

"dawn james" said...

i love it when the conversation turns to lethal force. i feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

tropical storms said...

For those who would use a knife as personal protection I'd strongly recommended a cane knife or a machete. They're both long enough to give you some reach and heavy enough to be an advantage. Just keep them sharpened and in a holster.

Dick Johnson said...

Thank you TS - I imagine you would know. Have seen many situations where such an implement had to be employed to stop an attack?

Jenny R. said...

@Animal Uncontrol

Would you please like to show me instances in which it was reported multiple shots (that struck the target, not just shots fired) were needed to take down a mauler were proven to be 'outright exaggerations'?

I, quite frankly, am inclined to trust the reports of the officials and witnesses that were actually there, especially those involved who had to handle the animal's body postmortem/justify their use of deadly force in an official capacity (law enforcement, etc.).

Why is it so hard to believe, people? Example; with human beings--a lot more fleshy and 'vulnerable' than animals bred to be ultimate killing machines for centuries--can sustain multiple shots before going down if they are artificially 'primed' by things such as steroids, PCP, or bath salts.

It's beyond feasible that an animal possessing extra thick skin, fur, a superior clotting factor, and virtually no pain response (even in non-fight situations they have been observed to have an abnormally high immunity to pain--to the point of shock collars and 'invisible' fences being virtually useless with the breed), with all the numbing and supercharging endocrine flux of fight-or-flight... could withstand multiple bullet strikes before going down.

The reason I nitpick is because we absolutely cannot afford to minimize the scope of the problem or the severity of the threat. Pitbull propaganda is doing that already, and the end result is proving escalating and fatal. Don't do them any favors. I am not being facetious when I say; not everyone has your arsenal, wits, experience, or fighting prowess. You may subconsciously be judging them to your higher standard. Again; not being snarky, I'm dead serious.

respect.
except for pitbullshit ;)

"dawn james" said...

animal uncontrol said:
The stories we hear about the super mauler that took 8-12 rounds to drop are outliers, if not outright exaggerations - I have shot various varmints myself and I find it exceptional that ANYTHING could take a couple of rounds of even, say, 9mm hollowpoint to the center of body mass and still be fully effective, which brings up the point that its as much or more about shot placement as opposed to caliber or number of rounds.

jenny r asked
Would you please like to show me instances in which it was reported multiple shots (that struck the target, not just shots fired) were needed to take down a mauler were proven to be 'outright exaggerations'?

i'll take a shot at that. the news media doesn't actually report how many shots struck the mutant. and i am sure the police are reluctant to report misses. you know, diminished confidence and all. people do not realize how fast pit bulls are. people do not realize how hard it is to hit a small fast moving object and one that is often moving at a fast irregular pattern even for highly skilled cops with extensive training and on going practice at the range and at extremely close range with adrenaline pumping. when a cop is successful, i'm convinced that it has as much to do with luck as skill. it is easy to see how a round could glance off of their ugly thick heads as the cop is stumbling backwards while the mutant encroaches. that being said, i would never favor a head shot or hit it in the head with a baseball bat, especially if the mutant had its jaws on something.

"Why is it so hard to believe, people? Example; with human beings--a lot more fleshy and 'vulnerable' than animals bred to be ultimate killing machines for centuries--can sustain multiple shots before going down if they are artificially 'primed' by things such as steroids, PCP, or bath salts."

i can guarantee that if you hit anyone or anything center body mass with a perfectly placed exploding hollow point it will go down. PCP, gameness etc is no match for blood loss and the obliteration of internal organs. how many times do you hear in human shootings "just an inch to the right and he'd be a goner." that's why the dude's comment has so much appeal:

"Or just dump a whole magazine into it for your own satisfaction. There's no such thing as overkill when it has to be dead ASAP. "

just turn that ugly fucker into swiss cheese, just make sure you can deal with the psychopathic pit nutter afterwards if needed.

Mom in Eugene said...

Craven-
We ought to have a post and open thread for defense strategies, and stories of success. I love hearing about maulers that didn't live to maul again.

No matter the weapon, it still takes longer than you would think for it to stop attacking and moving. Thinking that it will take many shots, and it is no guarantee, is the only rational thing to do.

You would think that organs falling out and arteries cut would stop it in its tracks. NOPE. Had the mauler died with the first fatal cut (gutting, TBH), I would have had much less damage. It only takes 30 seconds to kill something, and it only takes that long to shred flesh. The injuries were not too bad, considering, but it sure wasn't a small cut or a few punctures.

It can take 2 min for blood loss/organ damage to stop an animal. Any hunter that is a good shot can attest to this, and this is with much larger caliber rounds. Guns have stopping power, so you can get lucky if your aim is stellar. But its no guarantee, just your best chance.

THIS is the reality people have to think about, and why BSL is so needed. You do not want to have to rely on fighting your way out of an attack.

I never suggest doing things that will just enrage the dog, because it makes them fight harder. You need to disable it without relying on a lot of pain first, because pain is a signal to fight harder.

No, there are NOT dogs, in any sense of the word.

Anonymous said...

What we need is a floor plan of the apartment the super mauler was inside. There may be an easy explanation from the number of shots because I believe the cops went in with a plan. They'd already fired three shots from the window so they'd seen the apartment and the 'monster'.

They did correct the number of shots down from the original 13, so I think they did hit it a good number of times. They just might not have hit it anywhere that could drop it fast. But, they weren't being attacked and they knew they were going into an apartment with a crazy huge attacking mauler. So, the number of shots is probably way less than it it would take with a true surprise situation.

Animal Uncontrol said...

"i can guarantee that if you hit anyone or anything center body mass with a perfectly placed exploding hollow point it will go down. PCP, gameness etc is no match for blood loss and the obliteration of internal organs. how many times do you hear in human shootings "just an inch to the right and he'd be a goner." that's why the dude's comment has so much appeal"

Exactly.

I remember the first living thing I ever shot. It was a turkey buzzard on my grandparent's place in FL. We were doing a little varminting ("cleanup") and I was firing my grand-dad's .22. They had better guns, but I was a kid and that was the limit of my capability at the time.

A turkey buzzard is a big bird. I thought I would need multiple shots with the .22, but I didn't.

I got a clear, center of bodymass shot, and I can't emphasize this enough - it was like blowing out a candle. It literally flopped over dead. It did not twitch or make a sound. Again, good shot placement AND good ammo choice (hollowpoint).

My brother shot a few raccoons with a .357 magnum... it literally turned them inside out.

I don't trust the police reports all that much. I have it on good authority (a police chief) that many police officers are poor shots. Also, they may not be using firearms or ammunition that is the most effective. Shot placement is key: If I shoot you in the earlobe, will that take you down? Doubtful. How about if I shoot off your little toe? Nick your pinky fingernail?

I have been working up into hog hunting (and no pit bulls as hunt dogs, thank you very much). Many of these high powered rifle rounds... .270, .308, etc... can take down a large animal in one shot.

So, yes, I don't see even a 130 pound supermauler taking 2 rounds of hollowpoint anything into the center of its chest cavity and remaining effective. According to FBI the .357 magnum will stop a human attacker 91% to 97?% of the time WITH ONE SHOT. Again, I really doubt a 130 lb dog is going to require more than a couple of rounds of that.

I'll close by saying this: Self defense against a DOG is not something more than a handful of folks have contemplated. Dogs are Man's best friend, after all. Just about all self defense training indicates a scenario involving a human attacker. Few have contemplated this to any serious extent.

I think I see a series of blog posts on the horizon....

"dawn james" said...

"My brother shot a few raccoons with a .357 magnum... it literally turned them inside out."

i love your description. my weapon of choice and the thought of me turning a pit bull inside out makes me smile :-)

(screenshot that nutters. please.)

for anyone interested in seeing the difference between hollow point and full metal jacket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z9hv5dY_Ws


"I think I see a series of blog posts on the horizon...."

animal uncontrol, i can't wait. i always love your blogs.



"Craven-
We ought to have a post and open thread for defense strategies, and stories of success. I love hearing about maulers that didn't live to maul again."

mom in eugene, your stories are my absolute favorites. your hand to hand combat is nothing short of mind blowingly heroic. give me a snappy title and your wish is my command.

Anonymous said...

well, that's what I mean... they might not have been able to hit the super mauler any place that could kill it. but, they might have hit it several times before either those shots took their toll or they were able to land one in an effective area. but, their chances might be better than some because at least they knew there was a big, crazy dog in that apartment. they didn't just walk in and find out about it when it took a lunge at them. and that is how a lot of people do find out.

since they went in with a plan, i imagine it was time to not take the cops who aren't good shots into the apartment. so, i am figuring these were competent shooters. they wouldn't want to spend all day trying to kill the mauler because they didn't want it to possibly get loose.

"dawn james" said...

WRONG YOUTUBE LINK!

this one is better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v92Sj4XVKNw

Animal Uncontrol said...

I got all amp'd to do some target shooting today and the range was closed for the weekend.

UNHAPPY.

Anonymous said...

I've heard about some cops being able to kill a mauler in one or two shots. But, they were outdoors and it was day time.

"dawn james" said...

i still contend that taking an attacking mutant out in close range with one or two shots requires about as much luck as it does skill. that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

Anonymous said...

IDK... all I have ever shot are targets. I don't hunt and I can't think of anything mauler-sized that people do hunt.

Dick Johnson said...

"dawn james" 4:24

"i still contend that taking an attacking mutant out in close range with one or two shots requires about as much luck as it does skill."

If the pibble is charging you, then you may be right, but if pibble has already begun torturing a victim then it's more like shooting fish in a barrel.

Anonymous said...

I guess it is true, that once they have their victim picked out (assuming you're not the victim) that you could pretty well sneak up pretty close and get a really good shot at pibble. In that case, one or two shots should easily take care of it.

Ka D said...

Any law that tells me I DON'T have the GOD GIVEN right to protect myself is WRONG and I will not obey that law.

Animal Uncontrol said...

Dick Johnson said: "If the pibble is charging you, then you may be right, but if pibble has already begun torturing a victim then it's more like shooting fish in a barrel."

Agreed. In a case like that, You may be able to get right up to if for a good clean broadside shot.

Mom in Eugene said...

Hmmm… now I need a snappy title. I would love to see that post.

"dawn james" said...

"If the pibble is charging you, then you may be right, but if pibble has already begun torturing a victim then it's more like shooting fish in a barrel."

yes, i am talking about a pit bull charging the gunner.

you should also think of all of possible victim scenarios. a pit bull on a large animal, say a horse would be a tricky shot.

Dick Johnson said...

@"dawn james" 7:50

"you should also think of all of possible victim scenarios. a pit bull on a large animal, say a horse would be a tricky shot."

That's why I always say "simple is safe". Walk up to the mutant while he is engaged in his grisly gripping, place the barrel of the shotgun against his spine, and pull the trigger.

Animal Uncontrol said...

RE: The Claudia Gallardo killing - this was ANOTHER one similar to the Roy McSweeney and Klonda Richey killings. It was TOTALLY preventable. If we can't get BSL can we AT LEAST get KNOWN MAULERS off the streets?!?

Here, again, you had a dog that had terrorized a neighborhood for MONTHS and nothing (substantive) was done about it. That dog should have been impounded and destroyed LONG before Gallardo was attacked REGARDLESS OF BREED.

Going back to the topic at hand - if the government is "too broke" and "too busy" to do anything about this, how about we simply legalize sniping the damn things when they are running around biting people and attacking other animals?

Anonymous said...

Yes, a dog that is constantly running and biting needs taken care of even if its bites 'don't really hurt anybody'. Now, if no one is hurt (in reality, not nutterverse) then probably the dog will not be reported. People will just chase it away because that is easier. If people keep reporting the same dog, then that dog IS a nuisance. If these same people have injuries that be attributed to the dog then that dog is vicious. If the people are dead or hospitalized, that do is dangerous and a threat to public safety. People who own things like pit bulls need to understand the first time their dog gets out of hand might be the last time because more than one has killed someone the very first time they did anything to get into trouble.

tropical storms said...

I've seen a lot of dogfights but I've never seen an attack by a bulldog on anything but another bulldog. I live in FL where machetes and cane knives are ubiquitous. I carry a gun but if I had to opt for a knife it would be one of those.

tropical storms said...

12 gauge loaded with steel slugs, the ultimate stopping power.