part 4: of pit pit bulls and morons and entitlements

if past behavior is any predictor of future behavior, i expect ROZSA to delete his comments, so i have created this shrine to preserve them, along with my responses to his excuses.


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

blah blah blah, don't believe in hell.

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

i simply repeated and linked to your own comments on the internet. if i am lying you have one hell of a defamation lawsuit against me. but, i doubt that it would hold a candle to the defamation lawsuit against you by the "sheepfucker". (i save everything as a pdf or screenshot for evidence)

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

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

andrew, andrew, andrew... your statement about the plaintiff paying the court costs is in direct contradiction with the court documents, which you have apparently forgotten i have in my possession.



COURT COSTS ARE TAXED TO THE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 3-1-6, CODE OF ALABAMA (1975).
perhaps you have forgotten that YOU are the defendant/counter plaintiff. but don't take my word, here is the law spelled out on a NUTTER website:

§ 3-1-6. Liability of owner, etc., for injuries to livestock, etc., caused by dog while off premises of owner, etc.

If any dog, not being at the time on the premises of the owner or person having charge thereof, shall kill or injure any livestock, the owner or person having such dog in charge shall be liable for damages sustained by the killing or maiming of any livestock and for the full costs of the action.

(Code 1907, § 2471; Code 1923, § 5679; Code 1940, T. 3, § 6.)

* i keep saying this but you are apparently too fucking dense to absorb it for some reason. SO ONE MORE TIME. people who kill any dog (any includes pit bulls) that is safely contained on their property should go to prison. YOUR dogs were off of your property and not under your control or supervision. your opinion about their behavior when not in your sight, is pure speculation, not evidence.


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

SANDOR AND TIZSA DID KILL THE SHEEP. facts are stubborn things and no matter your wishes, inclinations or the dictates of your passion, you can not alter the state of facts and evidence.

a few courts have awarded large sums to people for the loss of a companion animal but not in alabama, at least none that i can find. i am aware of two cases that awarded the victim $30K+ for the loss of their companion. one lawsuit was against a vet in california and the other was against a neighbor for the death of their pet cat by the neighbor's chow in washington. careful what you wish andy, YOU and your cadre of pit nutters have much more to lose than me or mine in these civil suits. but that's why alabama nutters have fought so hard against NON breed specific dangerous dog laws, isn't it?

your comment about the insanity of comparing your dogs to animals raised for meat is offensive. i have read a great deal of your on line ramblings. you are critical of the political system that you left behind and proclaim to love your new country, yet like your knowledge of the pit bull, your knowledge of american history is superficial and self serving. there is an important phrase in american history, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you should familiarize yourself with it. these words were written by Thomas Jefferson but they were inspired by 17th century philosopher John Locke who was the single greatest influence in political philosophy, the american revolution and the U.S. constitution. what exactly does the "pursuit of happiness" mean? PURSUING ONE'S SELF INTEREST. in your narcissistic world view, the sheep owner's self interest (raising sheep) is not as important as your self interest (raising sheep killers). John Locke is also responsible for the famous phrase "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." the sheep owner was minding his own business and pursuing his legal self interests until your fist connected with his nose. the act you were found guilty of, is criminal in EVERY state. the sheep owner's reaction to that act is only criminal in some states due to the peculiarities of the sequence of events that individual states allow. the sheep owner's biggest mistake - he was honest. he should have just shot your dogs and buried them.

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

prison? not bloody likely! either your attorney is as batty as you are or you are lying AGAIN. i don't think a prosecutor would touch that case. he would have to prove felony animal cruelty in the first degree against an 80 year old man protecting his property. alabama's felony animal cruelty laws are very specific and alabama laws states no more than 6 months in a COUNTY JAIL on conviction. that is not prison. talk about ignorance and hysterics, you nutters wrote the book. i call fear mongering shenanigans AGAIN.

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

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

i never compared you to thugs and criminals, although you have been found guilty of a crime. i never even said that all pit bull owners are thugs and criminals because i don't believe that. in fact, i LOVE it when non criminal "responsible" nutters hit my radar. it's just like christmas when you are a little kid. you know why? it proves that it is not all how you raise them. as you stated previously, you trained them and treated them kindly and your dogs still murdered sheep. btw, the swastika/nazi comparison is against the pit bull, not the nutter, although sometimes it fits the nutter too.


OK... I am willing to learn.. but, please, no name calling. Can we have a honest discussion in which we can actually exchange ideas?

after your tirade, you decide on no name calling rules? i rather like to be on the receiving end of name calling but what i don't like is the name calling of victims. creep, murderer, moron, sheepfucker, curmudgeon, money mongering fool. andrew, you really do not help YOUR case. and honest discussions can only occur when both parties are able to abide by the rules.

Here is my defense - verbatim:

Small Claims Defense
-----------------------
The plaintiff’s complaint states that “Defendant allowed vicious dogs to roam loose and they killed plaintiff’s sheep in violation of Code Section 3-1-6.”

I. I did not allow the dogs to roam loosely

1.They escaped from our fenced yard because the ground was soft from the rains we had;
2. I did not allow them and I was not negligent; it was an inadvertent accident;
3. After each “escape,” I endeavored to fix whatever vulnerability there was in our containment system.

when you are truly responsible for dogs "24/7", inadvertent accidents do NOT occur. one escape is an accident, the second is negligence, the third and fourth escapes are gross negligence.

II. There are no local leash laws for dogs in Indian Springs Village

andrew, you might want to amend the PBRC pit bull owner commandments, especially #7 thy pit bull will NEVER be allowed to roam free in the neighborhood. EVER! to reflect your local law.

See my Commentary in the Village Voice from 2010 in which I thank the people of Indian Springs for being so dog-friendly and such decent neighbors;

i saw "A Shaggy Dog Story*". i wonder if the judge saw it, as it proves a pattern of irresponsibility and supports the victim's charge that you allowed your dogs to roam. but i love your confession about being "a slow learner" (so sad for the sheep and their owner) and how you have finally fixed the problem of your dogs digging to china and of course the tired platitudes "never met a stranger", "media hysteria" and "nanny dogs". (for my readers, it is on page 6)

*shaggy-dog story - a long, rambling story or joke, typically one that is amusing only because it is absurdly inconsequential or pointless.

III. My dogs were not vicious

By history, my dogs were not dangerous and have never shown a propensity for aggressiveness against people or animals of any sort, including our family cats; [see photos]

they never do until they do! it is not uncommon for pit bulls to turn on later in life, they don't all scratch out of whelping box. DARLA'S pit never showed any propensity for aggressiveness until the moment he killed her.

1. I have spent over $1,100 in training and learning to train my dogs; Attachment #11
2. I am a doctoral level animal behaviorist, therefore have expertise in dog behavior;
3. My dogs have never shown the slightest aggression toward either people or animals of ANY sort; this includes the family cats; See photos;
4. Pit Bulls are not considered inherently vicious according to Alabama Supreme Court decision of 2002.

expertise in dog behavior?! spending $1100 on a dog trainer, does not make give you the right to claim expertise. regarding your claim of their lack of viciousness, this should not be accepted as truth given your obvious denial about your dogs killing sheep and various other contradictions here.

Statements against Breed Specific Legislation by ALL the major animal organization, including the American Medical Veterinary Association support my contention that Pit Bulls terriers are not vicious;

ALL is an exaggeration.

The plaintiff’s take on calling my dogs “vicious” is unsubstantiated by evidence, law, or consensus.

the plaintiff calling your dogs vicious was substantiated by the bloody evidence on his property.

It is prejudiced and may have prompted the plaintiff to kill two innocent dogs. He saw two Pit Bull Terriers in his yard, ASSUMED they were vicious and killed them.

shy of small dogs like chihuahuas and dachshunds, just about any breed of dog found at the scene would have been assumed to be vicious killers. and since you nutters are always telling us that we can't identify pit bulls, where is your evidence that he is prejudiced? where is your evidence that he knew the dogs were pit bulls? where is your evidence that he cared what breed of dogs they were? the complaint against you, verbatim, reads:
Defendant allowed dogs to roam free in violation of Code Section 3-1-6. Defendant's dogs attacked plaintiff's sheep.

IV. My dogs did not kill the plaintiff’s sheep; coyotes are the more likely culprits.

according to hobbyfarm, natural predation "Killings usually occur at night or in very early morning, when you’re normally asleep." this website also details the differences among predators, "When signs of struggle or subcutaneous hemorrhage are present, the next step is to try and confirm the kind of predator. Each species leaves its own telltale signs at a kill. For example, canid species (coyotes, dogs, wolves, foxes) tend to attack from the sides and the hindquarters, grabbing their prey under the neck, whereas cats tend to jump up on the back, biting the top of the head or back of the neck. Close examination of paw-print size and shape, tooth spacing and size, feeding habits, and pattern of killing help correctly identify the predator responsible for the kill." correction, NORMAL dogs tend to attack in the manner described above, pit bulls were bred to grip the face. photos of the mauled sheep would be helpful.

I found the dead dogs outside the area where the sheep were; there they separated by a tall fence;

The sheep were in rigor mortis, one more advanced than the other, indicating death of at least 3 hours;

i defer to the dude on the question of rigor mortis. it sounded good to me.

The dogs were warm and limp;

The deaths of the sheep and the dogs were separated by significant time, perhaps hours;

There was no blood either in or on the mouths of the dogs, nor over their faces;

Sandor, the larger, male dog, was crippled; he had the Anterior Cruciate Ligaments (ACLs)of BOTH his hind legs ruptured, bilaterally. The dog was not able to jump an inch; he could not even climb up to the bed, had to be lifted;

your pit bulls dug out of their containment and likely dug into the sheep's containment. more on SANDOR'S injuries later.

Coyotes were reported to Animal Control no more than a few yards from Mr. Snider’s property just the week before the incident on June 17, 2011.

blah blah blah. this is HERESAY and not admissible in court and so shall not be considered here as anything more than blah blah blah.

Wild dogs and coyotes were killing our pets and domestic animals as far back as 12 years ago. They still do.

maybe it was your neglected chow husky?

V. The plaintiff’s demand for payment vastly exceeds the value of the sheep.

1. Data collected off the Internet indicates that the price of Katahdin sheep, at the time of this incident was between $1.85 to $2.85 per lb. live weight;
2. Assuming an average weight of 100-to-120 lbs, even at maximum value, the price of Mr. Snider’s sheep is no more than $342.00.

this shit really pisses me off. you claim the victim took advantage of the situation and sued you for more than the sheep were worth. the data that you collected off of the internet is inaccurate and your knowledge of the law regarding livestock losses is out to lunch same as your knowledge of pit bulls and american history. my data collected off of the internet shows that the damages the sheep owner sued for were reasonable ($1350). this link is selling katahdin sheep for $300 and $450. state laws allow for the victim to sue for twice the value of livestock which puts the damages between $1200 and $1800. fyi, the weight range of adult katahdin sheep is 125 - 185 lbs (ewes) and 180 - 250 lbs (rams). i assume the victim owned a breeding pair.


From 1967 to 1971 I trained lizards to distinguish between left and right. I was working on comparative intelligence. From 1972 to 1980 I worked with cats, dogs, opossums, rats, mice, and Rhesus monkeys on different behavioral tasks that were related to sensory systems. From 1981 until 1984 I worked with rabbits on healing of wounds, and the neurophysiology of pain, using the cornea as a model (free nerve endings).

this statement is in direct contradiction with your own blog. on 12.19.07 you stated "I have trained many animals, anywhere from lizards up to Rhesus monkeys and children with behavioral problems. Never did dogs, although I had a good notion of the principles involved."



and in your statement to the court:
2. I am a doctoral level animal behaviorist, therefore have expertise in dog behavior;
i am not a lawyer but this sounds like PERJURY.

you have accused me of attacking you professionally but you have used your profession to advance your deceptive agenda in the nutter campaign of disinformation, therefore, you professionally are a legitimate target.

DubV - I didn't feel prepared to deal with dogs on a daily bases and I wanted to have well-behaved and likable dogs. I was not going go into dog ownership unprepared: it would have unfair to the dogs, to me, to my family, and my neighbors.

BTW, my son's dog was NEVER tied/chained up. In fact, after we put up the dog run and the fence, a neighbor down the street complained that since Birthie couldn't go where she wanted, his dog didn't have anybody to play with. So, Birthie was pretty much a yard dog by her choice.

this does not help your case andrew. either way, chained, kenneled or roaming at will, you are not a responsible owner. and the fact that you allowed a stinky neglected chow husky (huskies are notorious for killing and eating chickens) to roam at will, leads me to believe that you felt your highly trained therapy canine good citizens were safe to roam as well. i personally do not see any difference between chained or kenneled dog. it is a neglected dog.

April - 1. The dogs have gotten out 4 times total in 4 years. Sandor liked to wander, smell new areas, the female, Tisza, just followed him. I wrote an article to the local newsletter about the kindness of my neighbors, since, whenever "Houdini" escaped, they called me to tell me they were playing with the dogs and I can come and pick them up. I always added some additional feature to the containment areas, as I learned how they got out. I should have been more vigilant, but I honestly did not think they would ever harm anybody or anything. They had no history or inclination. They were well-adjusted, friendly, loving animals. Even my wife, who is a cat lover, liked them.

FOUR times at large. me thinks there could be more victims that you are in denial about. HOUDINI dogs REQUIRE constant visual supervision when outdoors. period. end of discussion.

2. The ACLs. I brought a emergency vet's report to Court. Sandor could walk, but always paid the price. He was exhausted after a few minutes in the yard. I had to move the feeding downstairs, because he couldn't climb the stairs anymore. The neighbor with the sheep is about 10 houses from h=ours, bu the dogs could cut through the backyards. The sheep were in an enclosure that had fences that were 8-ft tall. The man said my dogs jumped the fence. And, then, they must have out, too, because he shot them in a different enclosure altogether - that one with open gate.

this just happens to be a subject that i know a little bit about as MY dog had the same injury. he could not jump, he could walk a short number of stairs, he could step up onto his bed, although slowly and with great difficulty and pain. i agree, i don't think that SANDOR could scale an 8 ft fence. IF i believe you and that is a BIG if, how could he even dig out of your fenced property, which you admit that he did? how did SANDOR walk a mile to the neighbor? my dog couldn't have done it but then again, my dog is just a CUR. he's not a dog that you would consider owning. he's certainly no tenacious fighting dog with a high tolerance to pain.

ED FARON wrote of his pit fighters:

"The gamest dog I ever saw in my life was King David. At ten minutes, his right leg was broken. At twenty-three minutes, his left leg was broken. At thirty-seven he scratched on stumps, and at forty-eight minutes when he scratched he scratched down one wall and down the other until he got to Beau again." Page 62

"Sadie hit the front legs immediately, by the 15 minute mark she had both of Star's front legs broken and one of them was completely gone- but Star kept on scratching, we couldn't stop her." Page 78

"Ajex gradually worked his way to the top and at forty-five minutes broke on of Bandit's front legs with a loud snap. The leg dangled uselessly for the rest of the fight." Page 92

"The pup off Bandit (blinded in one eye one back leg broken, and his head, chest both shoulders and both stifles badly damaged) finally quit, coming across and standing parallel with the dog on his last scratch. At this point the ‘dogman' told the kid something to the effect of "see, I told you he was a cur like his father." Page 97

3. "Andrew, respect for neighbors would demand containment of dogs, of whatever breed, without laws demanding it." I absolutely agree. I thought I had it covered. Clearly I was mistaken.

your neighbor, his sheep and your dogs all paid for YOUR mistake.

4. Training. I worked with a guy who is an expert at dealing with "tough" dogs. He trains guard dogs for the troupes abroad in order to protect "high value assets." Aaron sent me a copy of the bill for the Court. We did Puppy, Obedience, Advanced Obedience, Hand (Silent) Signals, and Off-Leash Control. The sessions were one-on-one, at home, $75/hr.

big fucking deal. that means absolutely NOTHING.

5. You are right about the name calling. I was not aware of Dawns "project." I read it last night and I was really upset. I should have held my tongue (fingers) and waited until I cooled down. The original argument started with Dawn advocating the killing of dogs if you feel threatened. I commented that one needs to be cautious, because simply killing a dog because it is a Pit Bull can end up in a legal and financial problem for the shooter. The response was the diatribe. The man who shot my dogs got the price of his sheep and I got the value of loss of affection, loss of companionship, and the sentimental value of my dogs, NOT the value of dogs as property, as Dawn suggested. The opinion of Courts has been changing and I advise caution.

dogs are property. i included laws to all 50 states regarding the use of lethal force in self defense. most of those laws are specific to using lethal force against another human. dangerous situations that permit the use of lethal force against humans would certainly apply to lethal force against a pit bull.

were you awarded the value of the loss of affection etc or was it in fact the monetary value of your dogs and their training etc?

I will terminate my conversation here by stating that if I offended anyone I am deeply sorry and I apologize. My advocacy for these dogs comes the heart. I resent being thrown in the same bag as the criminals and cruel people who create the monsters that harm people. Luckily, I have never met any of them and I hope I never will. I, and my friends, advocate responsible ownership, regardless of breed or the type of animal you have. I believe that a properly SELECTED and trained APBT can be a wonderful dog for some people. I believe that some of the Pit Bulls should be put to sleep. I believe ALL Pit Bulls should be neutered or spayed. I just don't believe that a city agency, frequently without any training at all, should have the ability to come into my house and take my dogs and kill them because they are a certain breed.

the violence that pit bulls perpetrate against other animals is my primary focus in this swamp. even if man biters were all culled, and pit bulls were truly the most people pleasingest mutts on earth, it is unacceptable to have dogs with animal directed explosive aggression in modern society. there is no place for these dogs. they are 19th century primitives living in the 21st century. technology advances and we no longer have a legitimate need of gripping dogs and we never had a need for dogs bred for sport combat.

All of those who have been harmed by a Pit Bull, please accept sincerest apologies from me and all of us who love and care for the breed. My heart reaches out to you and I'll pray for your peace of mind and soul. May you never have a similar experience, EVER.

Kind regards to all.

you do not owe me an apology. you owe the sheep owner an apology. i haven't been physically harmed, and i don't need to be harmed to be outraged over the pit bull problem, which is ALWAYS made worse by nutter propaganda and the persecution of victims by pit bull owners.

be a good american citizen and a good pit bull owner. make PBRC proud and repeat after me:

I, Dr Andrew Rozsa, offer my deepest, most sincere apology to the sheep owner. I am very sorry for the loss of your sheep and the trouble that I caused you. I should have taken my role as a fighting dog owner much much more seriously. I should not have defamed you in town or on the internet. I bought into THE BIG LIE. I thought I was special. To Susan Thompson and Lex Kelly of PBRC, I disappointed you and all pit bull owners with my disingenuous adherence to the Holy Pit Bull Ownership Ten Commandments and I brought shame upon our community.

Sharon - see my response to April. As far as the ACLs are concerned... surgery ($4500) was schedule for 3 weeks after the dogs were killed. It was the surgeon's schedule. Since then, my present foster, Charlie Brown, has had a bowel occlusion last month and it cost $3,385 to have his surgery.

THREE WEEKS?! i have a very hard time believing that. when my dog was diagnosed, one of the BEST TPLO surgeons in the region was able to perform the surgery in a matter of 3 days. if you allowed SANDOR to suffer with that injury for (at least) 3 weeks, you are a massive failure as a dog owner. drive to atlanta or nashville if you have to, that is just plain cruel. (IF i believe your story)


i wonder if there still time for the sheep owner to file an appeal?
i wonder what the statute of limitations is for perjury charges?


andrew - you and your dogs are not special. you and your dog of choice are not entitled to special consideration.

recommended reading The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

the doctor is IN

Andrew said...

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

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

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

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

July 23, 2012 10:52 PM

you can leave a comment here or join in the conversation there.

part two: of pit bulls and morons and sheep

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

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

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

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

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

screenshot of the judgment



BOTH the plaintiff and the defendant proved their cases.

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

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

ROZSA was ordered to pay the court costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

part three

ROZSA'S killer pits

ROZSA'S replacement pits

unskilled and unaware

ockham's razor

cognitive dissonance

kershaw v mckown

dogbitelaw/alabama

ATTENTION: CITIZENS OF ALABAMA

STAND YOUR GROUND
there is nothing in the alabama state law that forbids the use of deadly force when it comes to pit bulls. do not allow bullies in animal control tell you otherwise!

Section 13A-3-23

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)


REPEAT:

A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO LIVESTOCK

Law § 3-1-1: Keeping of dog known to kill, etc., stock prohibited; liability of owner for injuries, etc., caused by same; liability for killing of same.

Translation: No one can keep a dog that is capable of killing, maiming, or harming livestock without being aware that the dog can be vicious. If you keep such a dog, you are liable for twice the worth of any livestock that your dog might kill or injure. Also, if your dog behaves in this way and someone kills him, that third party is not liable for the dog's death.

so much for blaming the deed and banning stupid owners

i think it is safe to say that those are empty slogans used for the sole purpose of diverting attention away from their frankenmaulers and escaping responsibility.

Madison County, Alabama: 74% of the voters said YES to a NON BREED SPECIFIC dangerous dog law. and guess who is against it? that's right... PIT NUTTERS! why? because even though it is not breed specific, they and their wiggle butts are the ones who will feel the greatest impact.

HB147 states

The Madison County Commission, by resolution applicable to those areas of Madison County outside the corporate limits of any municipality, may establish a procedure by which a dog can be declared dangerous, may impose civil penalties on the owner of a dog that inflicts severe personal harm on another person, and may require that dangerous dogs, as defined by the commission, be kept in a fenced enclosure, as defined by the commission, with input from the local humane society.

Section 2. An election upon the proposed amendment shall be held in accordance with Amendment 555 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 284.01 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, and the election laws of this state.

Section 3. The appropriate election official shall assign a ballot number for the proposed constitutional amendment on the election ballot and shall set forth the following description of the substance or subject matter of the proposed constitutional amendment:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, for those areas of Madison County outside the corporate limits of any municipality, to authorize the Madison County Commission, by resolution, to establish a procedure by which a dog can be declared dangerous, to impose civil penalties on the owner of a dog that inflicts severe personal harm on another person, and to require that dangerous dogs be kept in a fenced enclosure with input from the local humane society.

nowhere in this amendment does it single out the pit bull or rottweiler or wolf hybrid. hard to imagine WHY people who squeal about blaming deeds and banning stupid owners and media bias would not welcome this into law. i think their opposition PROVES that the media isn't biased and the pit bull owners are trying to protect themselves.

let's take a closer look at the nutters who are opposed to holding dog owners responsible for the damage that their dogs inflict on others and forcing them to keep said dogs enclosed in a fence.

WHNT reported on this in late october. they went to a DOG PARK and interviewed PETER and KATHY.

is that a wiggle butt?

PETER LARIVIERE "Anybody who is a pet owner should be concerned."

anybody? you mean like dachshund, poodle and collie owners? yeah, they are all up in arms about it. oh, no wait, they are too busy still trying to find the fucktards who left them with a mangled heap of blood and fur on the sidewalk.

KATHY MATRAS "When you are going in there to vote and you don't have all the information ahead of time, it's an extremely awkward situation. If they want you to cast a ballot and cast it intelligently, they should give you enough information to make an educated decision."

all of the information is there. it need not be made more difficult by nutter lawyers from new york and utah. if your dog bites, you will be held responsible. it is as simple as that.

WAFF

JESSICA CABLER "My dogs are really sweet, really goofy, really fun. They are all perfect with people, perfect with other animals."

obviously JESSICA has nothing to worry about, it's THOSE pit bull owners who RAISE them wrong. (that was sarcasm) she should be embracing this law but instead she is whipping up a fear frenzy saying it "might snowball into a breed ban" and that would put her "pit rescue out of business". isn't the REAL goal behind a RESCUE to no longer be needed? don't you want to reach a point where every dog has a home? and the pit nutters call us fear mongers!

i saved the absolute best for last.

WAAYTV

BRYNN ANDERSON "Since it's so vague, it's got us nervous. I am not angry and I do believe irresponsible dog owners need to be held responsible, but it bothers me. I worry about my dogs future."

it is VAGUE because it is NOT breed specific! it bothers her because she knows that the media is NOT biased and that even "responsible" pit bull owners can't safely guarantee containment of their mutants. i would love to see what kind of an ordinance these nutters would write.

watch BRYNN entertaining the news media in her home. her dogs are out of control and LEASHED inside her home! as one of the news crew members reaches out to pet one of her mutants, it tries to say "hello" with its teeth. outside, her dog is pulling so hard on its leash, that it is walking upright. that's NOT what you want to see coming toward you when walking your poodle!

BRYNN ANDERSON is the vice president of the alabama bulldogger association. you will find a lot of "cool" people at their events, like FLOYD B and this little one. she is in cool training.

cool junior will be getting her first tat after the show.