ROZSA'S version of the events are as follows, his dogs dug out from under his fence while he was cleaning up after a storm. his dogs found their way onto a neighbor's property and as luck would have it, at the exact moment that his neighbor was discovering his dead sheep that were killed by either the mountain lion or coyotes that were seen in the area the day before. the sheep owner erroneously assumed ROZSA'S pit bulls were responsible for the slaughter of his sheep, because the sheep owner, like the rest of us, was exercising hateful ignorant stereotyping behavior towards poor misunderstood wiggle butts. the sheep owner went inside, retrieved his shotgun and killed ROZSA'S two scapegoats. it is surprising that ROZSA did not try to put forth a defense that his highly trained certified therapy canine good citizens were simply trying to SAVE the sheep from the native predators.
ROZSA told me that he was sued by the sheep owner and that he in turn filed a counter claim against the sheep owner for the wrongful deaths of his dogs. ROZSA stated "I proved in Court that he was lying, that my Certified Therapy and Canine Good Citizen dogs were not the culprits. Coyotes and a mountain lion were seen in his backyard just the day before this incident." apparently in ROZSA'S fantasy world, rumors of rare predators seen in the area meets a greater burden of proof than being caught in the act of committing the crime. ROZSA warned me of the dangers of stereotyping dogs and then explained that he had "dedicated hundreds of hours of training and thousands of dollars learning how to train dogs. I treated them kindly, like I would treat any animal or person." my interpretation is that his exemplary treatment of his dogs should be viewed as proof of their innocence, because everyone KNOWS that only abused and neglected pit bulls and those trained to be aggressive were in fact guilty of aggression. in spite of the fact that mountain lions are extremely rare in alabama (the state claims there are none) ROZSA insists on clinging to this alternative reality. even if there were documented cases of cougars in alabama, they typically hunt at night and would eat what they kill. the coyote on the other hand, is a hunter of small animals and unlikely to take on two adult sheep that are at least twice his size. lone coyotes can easily prey on lambs and packs of coyotes are known to take on adults but a pack is unlikely to roam into urban and suburban areas. a coyote would also eat what it kills.
poor andrew. he has either overestimated his own intelligence or he must not be familiar with craven desires and the truth blog. ROZSA is operating under the false assumption that he is a "responsible, knowledgeable pit bull owner" and that there is nothing that he could possibly learn from these blogs and that the mere sighting of a Goebbels quote or the pit bull banner with swastikas is proof that i am nazi/racist/bigot. he made another grave error, expecting me to believe this old con favored by pit nutters about cougars being the culprits. never trust your pit bull not to fight and never trust craven to not check out your story. i don't take anyone's word on faith, ever. i require proof, always. if nothing else, just a little bit of time spent on craven or the truth blog or america's dog and ROZSA would have discovered that i can be a bit of a pit bull too. i have friends all over the U.S., including alabama and i managed to acquire ROZSA'S court documents and the case law cited in his case. and as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ROZSA DID NOT PROVE IN COURT THAT THE SHEEP OWNER WAS LYING. IN FACT, THE COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT ROZSA WAS LYING TO ME.
screenshot of the judgment
BOTH the plaintiff and the defendant proved their cases.
first, the original claim filed by the sheep owner. the victim proved in court that ROZSA'S pit bulls killed his sheep and the judge awarded him the value of the sheep, $1350.00.
second, the counter claim against the sheep owner. the judge rendered a favorable verdict for ROZSA'S wrongful death counterclaim and awarded him the maximum allowed in small claims court, $3000.00.
ROZSA was ordered to pay the court costs.
alabama law is very clear, dog owners are responsible for the damage caused by their dog EVEN if the dog had no previous history of aggression. the counter claim is the tricky part and it required some research on my part.
Kershaw v McKown
JH McKown shot and killed CG Kershaw's dog when it attacked his goats. Kershaw (dog owner) sued McKown (goat owner) claiming the goat owner had no right to kill his dog, that his dog was more valuable than the goat and the goat owner should have shooed the dog away. the jury ruled in the goat owner's favor. the dog owner appealed. the alabama supreme court ruled unanimously "The defendant had the right to act on the reasonable appearance of things [***7] in defending his property from such attack." in ROZSA'S case, once the sheep were dead, lethal force was considered excessive and unreasonable.
in the eyes of the law in the state of alabama, with the sheep dead, the threat is considered to no longer exist. it is an undisputed fact that the pit bulls no longer posed a threat to THOSE sheep but the dogs have just demonstrated what they are capable of and to allow the killers to leave your property, potentially in search of other victims is irresponsible. that's just my opinion but i suspect that it is shared by many. additionally, if the sheep owner called 911 but the dogs were gone by the time law enforcement or animal control arrived, he would not know the identity of the dogs' owner and therefore would be unable to be made whole. it is unfortunate that the sheep owner did not appeal the verdict. clearly, this is a law that needs to be challenged, especially in light of the ever increasing popularity of pit bulls in the hands of the incompetent.
under what conditions would the sheep owner have prevailed in both cases?
in the eyes of the current law in the state of alabama, the sheep owner would be free and clear to kill the pits IF the sheep were already dead and the sheep owner knew them to have a prior history of viciousness.
the current law in the state of alabama allows the sheep owner to kill the pits IF the sheep were alive and actively being attacked or threatened with attack or IF the the sheep were dead and the sheep owner was already armed and said he feared for his safety. this is where the knowledge of "stand your ground" law comes in handy. inherent in the stand your ground laws is "no duty to retreat". some states look down on someone who removes themselves from a threat (retreats), arms themselves and then place themselves back in danger. this is one reason why it is important to always be armed and why it is critical to know your state laws. if you have access to the internet, you have access to your state's laws. (more about stand your ground in part 3)
"I will use whatever argument I think will help get my personal bias/belief across." Dr Andrew Rozsa
"On the bases of 30 years of education and 25 years of clinical practice, I will tell you, without hesitation, that anybody who thinks that there are no differences between races is either ignorant or has an ugly, ugly, political agenda. You want to set someone up for sure failure? Expect him to deliver something that he cannot." Dr Andrew Rozsa
ROZSA dedicated hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars of training. he treated his dogs kindly and yet when given the opportunity, his dogs went on a killing spree. if ROZSA did everything right, why did his dogs kill 2 sheep? if not nurture, then nature. there is not a third option. still ROZSA clings to the propaganda as evidenced by his comments post attack (6.17.11). there was no softening or shifting of his nature/nurture position. there was no diminished chest thumping of dog handling prowess.
"I will NOT engage in a nature vs. nurture argument here. I know for a fact that I can modify the behavior of the dog to conform to the needs, rules, and social requirements of the milieu in which it lives." 11.28.11
ROZSA has been presented with disconfirmation of his beliefs - killer pit dogs. that created an uncomfortable situation, so he concocted an alternative explanation - mountain lions*.
pit bull advocates will say whatever they feel will advance their cause at any given moment, which is why their propaganda weaves in and out of reality & fantasy and has so many conflicting rationalizations. this is how a highly educated successful professional can testify under oath that his dogs did not kill his neighbor's sheep, and insist that the killers had to be a mountain lion or a coyote. ROZSA has actually convinced himself that his pit bulls were innocent.
DR ROZSA proudly reproduced the PBRC pit bull owner commandments on his blog in 2008. it is still there.
how many violations do you find? an even better question would be how many violations would ROZSA find? my money is on none.
i count numbers 1,2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 as violations. the most egregious violation is #10, as it compounds all of the other violations and creates an environment where this is likely to happen again. ROZSA refuses to take any responsibility for the wanton killing of his neighbor's sheep which is evidenced by his counter claim and fantasy land excuses of natural predation. the death of the sheep was the direct result of ROZSA'S inability to properly contain and supervise his pit bulls, NOT his inability to train and nurture them.
from andrew's primer on the APBT:
1. APBTs are not for everyone. Definitely not for a first-time dog owner. Ownership of an American Pit Bull Terrier demands dedication, a firm hand, willingness to commit to being responsible for every second of every minute, 24/7 of your dog's entire life.
ROZSA has proved once again that the APBT is not for the first time dog owner, himself included. ROZSA has proved that there is no such thing as 24/7 responsibility, himself included. ROZSA has proved once again that the face pit nutters present to the rest of us is far from reality, himself included. SANDOR and TISA were ROZSA'S first APBTs, they were his first dogs. ROZSA is now officially an experienced pit bull owner and he is onto his second set of mutants. but his experience came at the cost of his neighbor's sheep and his neighbor's peace of mind. for the sake of those living around him, i hope ROZSA took this education seriously but given the tone of his comments to me "my dogs" " my money" "my time" "my rights" "my loss" "my pain and suffering", that is unlikely.
there are good reasons why pit bulls (and their owners) are the most hated in america, in any decade. thank you for the reminder andrew.
*an unsubstantiated report of a mountain lion in birmingham on 4.5.12 caused some concern but "Experts say your chances of being attacked or killed by a domestic dog are much, much greater than being attacked by a mountain lion."
part three
ROZSA'S killer pits
ROZSA'S replacement pits
unskilled and unaware
ockham's razor
cognitive dissonance
kershaw v mckown
dogbitelaw/alabama
