Friday, July 27, 2012

just like a nutter

rozsa wants to know if he did anything to provoke me. i think promoting the nanny dog and it's all how you raise 'em myths then blaming a victim for his (rozsa's) poor judgement and negligence is quite enough, don't you?

sadly, this scenario plays out all of the time.

"The 45-year-old woman was covered in bite marks, her clothes torn and her body surrounded by pools of blood and chunks of flesh."

Kelly Caldwell was torn apart by 3 pit bulls as she walked to the store on 12.25.07.

Kelly's murder was the first since Diane Wipple that got me fired up. she was violently killed while minding her own business in a place that she had a legal right to be. immediately the nutter community began to impugn her character. two days after her murder, the owners of the homicidal maniacs posed for the desert dispatch, photo of gentle nanny dog with infant in hand. judging by the look of anger and annoyance on their faces, these two punks no doubt felt their nanny dogs were provoked too. but for the fact that there was a witness to the violence, these thug nutters likely would have blamed cougars, coyotes and chihuahuas too.

John Allan Peterson and Jeffrey Dwayne King Jr

last week Kelly's killers plead no contest to owning a dangerous dog that caused death and were sentenced to 120 DAYS in COUNTY JAIL to be SERVED on WEEKENDS.


cali is fucked up. even the system down in the third world country that borders alabama known as MISSISSIPPI knows how to handle these cretins. SWANSON was sentenced to 20 years in prison but will serve 5 and then spend another 5 under probation for the murder of his friend, neighbor and tenant Ronnie Waldo. Waldo was killed by SWANSON'S pit bulls when he went next door to borrow a tool to fix his malfunctioning hot water heater.


Your Quiet Neighbor said...

Awww, the poor pittie owners. Having to go to jail on weekends is really going to cut into their party time.

Jim Reeve said...

Yeah, weekends is really severe. And thats totally fair for taking someone's life. If someone owned a gun that accidentally killed someone, they'd get at least a few years, but when it's a dog, not so much.

Anonymous said...

a photo like this baby with mutant photo proves diddly -squat except that these people are either grasping at straws or are pretty feeble minded. actually, quite possibly the dog in the photo is a very real danger to the the baby but the photo proves otherwise ? really childish , stupid stuff. people like this should not be keeping dangerous type dogs . but , then neither should people like dr .andrew rosza. yes , craven and us ass-holes are incensed by this bull-shit . more people need to be and thats partly what this "swamp" of a blog is for .

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i wish kelly's parents would have posed with a photo of their daughter at the crime scene.

regarding this swamp, dead on snarky.

Alexandra said...

I wish skeptifem would air her thoughts here. This photo looks to me like two macho-men who are angry that their incontestable I-have-a-penis-so-I-can-abuse-women-children-and-anything-else-I-please Male Authority was contested after all.

Not the same as hybristophilia, but just as mentally ill.

Prosecutor Daugherty in this case is a total jerk, probably has pit bulls at home himself (and a penis problem). Case difficult for the prosecution? Give me a break. The judge is also an idiot.

But most of all our legislators are idiots and corrupt. We need to be getting to them, making clear that if they don't stop this carnage, they can look for some other job.

Just my thoughts.

Small Survivors said...

When I read this shit I go straight back to wanting to completely ban these piece of shit dogs.

It came down to bargaining because they didn't have proof which of these execrable pustules' shitbulls actually killed the woman???? Because evidently merely possessing and allowing turd beasts to tear chunks out of a living, dying or dead human being doesn't merit more than being grounded on the weekends.

And right on snarky, these punk cretins now think they've won! Look at them with their self-righteous stares with their photo that proves that photos PROVE NOTHING!

These imbeciles think they're schooling us - see, my craptastic dog didn't kill a child once.

My mind flashed to a movie with Denzel Washington that I hadn't thought of in ages - at one point Washington put a dynamite up a man's ass and lights it. I don't know why that came to mind...

DubV said...

If Rozsa were being honest, how would he describe his mentality during the "investigating" into whether hid dogs killed those sheep? Was his first reaction, "my dogs could not have possibly done this" or "my dogs might have done this, I'd like to know the truth"?

It's pretty obvious he was on a mission to clear the good name of his dogs, and he looked for any little thread to pull at.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

Man on Fire. good movie. i am a christopher walken junkie.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

What's the point of showing a picture of their pit bull with a baby? Maybe to show pit bulls trusted with children will still kill a human or another dog?

Just makes me sick to think they probably have another mauling machine. We all know Andrew didn't waste time. Pit nutters, sheesh, they will never learn.

Rumpelstiltskin said...

Sad to say, the law is still in favor of pit bull owners.

Pit nutters talk about "taking responsibility" but it's just hot air.

Garnet said...

Jesus Christ. Jail on weekends for killing another person. What the hell is wrong with our society?

The only thing the 'pit bull with baby' photo proves to me is that these assholes are a danger not only to adults walking down the street but to their own kids as well. If they can't keep their killer animals away from people, they should be kept separate from society, and not just on weekends. Society would be a better, safer place without these sociopaths and their fighting dogs around.

This also shows that those photos used to demonstrate that pit bulls are "nanny" dogs prove nothing whatsoever other than the fact that some parents are really stupid.

safer midwifery utah said...

Sure, I'll weigh in...

I'm sure appearing masculine was a factor in choosing a dog breed (after all, if they got a snack sized dog or a poofy one they could be called a faggot). Most guys care about that kind of bullshit. However, most who do probably aren't lining up to put their kids next to their super dangerous dog (if they were I would see more pictures of babies next to guns, but its hard to find those). Maybe they thought they were getting the best of everything (something that looks tough but is actually very safe).

There isn't any way to know for sure. I do know that *no one* warned of the problems before handing out the dogs, which is a real problem in prosecuting people for having dogs that kill. Other dangerous things in society (cars, guns, drugs, exotic animals) have warnings plastered all over them, and require certain legal conditions for the privilege of owning/using them. Without those provisions it is hard to say how much neglect was involved in having a dog that killed, and it makes it harder to add years to a sentence. It seems like harsh pentalties should be reserved for people who are demonstrably neglectful in matters where they had a reasonable chance of understanding the danger involved. There is so much bullshit about pits being like "any other dog" that a lot of folks probably think a pit at large is as dangerous as a poodle at large. After all its what the shelters and humane groups say all the fucking time. Most people aren't even given training on pet ownership in general before owning a dog, so regular people may find it reasonable to conclude that a dog that is safe around children will be safe around anyone.

I watched a documentary about hurricane katrina victims. One of them had a camcorder and documented the whole thing. They were poor as fuck, and backyard breeders who rented out their adult dogs for security. I don't know what I could reasonably tell them to do otherwise- selling the dogs was the only way they could afford important neccesities after the storm, and it ultimately got one of them a job. The way that the problem of pit bulls is wrapped up in poverty is another obstacle to overcome. Without the propaganda (usually coming from wealthy/middle class white people) about the dogs it would probably be easier to require a disclaimer or realistic information about different dog breeds. We owe people with fewer educational resources that information before they choose to get these animals. Maybe all of them would get the dogs anyway, but I doubt it, and perhaps there would be fewer people unable to pay for hospital bills or serving time if they had been given a fair chance beforehand.

vintage said...

This California Nutter pleaded down to child abuse for when her wigglebutts tried to pulll the Neighbor's 4 year old through the fence by his head,,,

On Monday, Judge Tina Ainley of the Yavapai County Superior Court sentenced Katrina Vidaurre, 39, to 153 days of jail with credit for time served and an additional 180 "on order" jail time, according to Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

Ainley also put Vidaurre on probation, which prohibits her from owning or possessing dogs for the next 10 years. Vidaurre also must perform 200 hours of community service, Polk said.

On Feb. 4, two mixed pit-bull dogs attacked two brothers through fencing between the yards.

Vidaurre was ordered to pay full restitution for the family's medical expenses, Polk said

Read more:

vintage said...

Correction on my last post...That was Arizona...

California has has a grotesque 15 Pit Bull DBRFs since Kelly Caldwell was killed in 2007.

DubV said...

"I'm sure appearing masculine was a factor in choosing a dog breed (after all, if they got a snack sized dog or a poofy one they could be called a faggot). Most guys care about that kind of bullshit. "

I'd be careful not to tar men with too broad a brush. If most men wanted a macho dog, then labs wouldn't be the most popular dog in the US. Also, it changes with age. Younger men are more likely to be worried about masculinity. Further, the guys who are macho d-bags tend to stick out, those possibly creating a false impression of prevalence. Finally, a man naturally having a masculine frame, with some facial hair, and wearing guy's clothes doesn't mean he is overly concerned with his masculinity, he might just be naturally masculine in appearance and mannerism, which is a thing.

If natural masculinity did not exist in some form, then the weird pursuit of it and amplification of it would not have ever started. This is also shown by women taking on a more "masculine" look when given testosterone.

safer midwifery utah said...

"If natural masculinity did not exist in some form, then the weird pursuit of it and amplification of it would not have ever started."

Citation needed.

If there were a natural masculinity it would vary so wildly from culture to culture.

Anonymous said...

used to be said you couldnt trust anyone over 30 . lookit those two shit-heads with their attitude and their hoodies . a woman , has been killed by their dogs and theyr out protesting the dirt-napping of the canine culprits. dna proves the case, though these two morons probably didnt realize that would happen and some justice (although not enuf)is served up on weekends only . i like it though, the idea of these idiots spending their weekends in jail , but it just goes to show how cheap life has become and how easily disrespected.

DubV said...


"If there were a natural masculinity it would vary so wildly from culture to culture."

I see your point that culture obviously influences things. I believe in nature and nurture. In form, the argument in the sentence I quote above is similar to:

[If there is a difference in average male and female height, then why are men born in Eastern Asian on average shorter than those born in Western Europe and why are malnourished men shorter than healthy men on average?]

Do men and women differ anatomically outside of merely the urogenital system? Despite variation and overlap, do the categories male and female have predictive value in terms of form especially but also somewhat on function? If I know that someone is male, will it help me to predict the pitch of their voice as well as, let's say, their chance of being colorblind? You don't want citations showing brain and other differences between the sexes do you? There are many, many of those.

Here's a few hundred to look through just concerning the brain

Of course, a strict nurture hypothesis cannot be completely disproved because the controlled experiments to do so are unethical.

Of course, what you see intersects with nurture and culture (and it was my fault to mention something superficial like clothing style), but is it any wonder that the categories "masculine" and "feminine" came about? Noticing a difference is not to say one is better or worse or needs a defined role. "Natural masculinity" can simply refer to those tendencies that appear to have a strong genetic component and are more common in men. If these differences exist, then we could concoct a more complicated and pc term for them, but it would end up meaning "masculine" or "feminine".

Miss Margo said...

How can these guys be such insensitive assholes? Stupidity is no excuse. Plenty of stupid people have decent values.

I feel awful for Caldwell. That could have been my Mom! Or me.

Regarding whether Rosza provoked you...he put himself out there.

Anonymous said...

how can these things happen and people not be sickened and outraged at the people responsible ? i mean fuck , isnt that what these idiots keep talking about ....responsibility ?

Anonymous said...

It's lip service to cover for this kind of lip service aka pit service.. (Please google Pitbull rips lip off... TAKE YOUR PICK.. so many to choose from.. sigh)