Submitted by AphidGenocide t3_z79jke in rva
spaceforcefighter t1_iy5m3sm wrote
Reply to comment by AphidGenocide in No criminal charges for owner of pit bull that killed 88 year old woman by AphidGenocide
Read the article and you will know the details and understand why criminal charges were not pursued, then you won’t need to criticize based on nothing. Maybe you’ll still disagree with the decision, but you’ll have some information.
notnot_athrowaway t1_iy5nxxj wrote
The article doesn't state why criminal charges aren't being pursued, it just says the owner was issued five summonses for civil infractions.
AphidGenocide OP t1_iy5y2sn wrote
Lol Colette is that you? If you didn't want people to criticize you, then you shouldn't have been the Commonwealth Attorney.
I clearly read (and quoted) the article I posted... There were no details of why charges were declined.
The dog was already using a shock collar, and it was unrestrained. That's all the information I really have.
If Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin wants to be more transparent, maybe I'd agree it was not appropriate to charge Tracey Hicks. Given the lack of transparency already, I highly doubt it.
EJH-RVA t1_iy5mud9 wrote
I read the article and still do not understand why she declined to charge the dog’s owner. Someone is dead now as a direct result of the owner’s choices and actions. Had she chosen a normal breed of dog, her neighbor would be alive right now. The dangers of pit bulls are statistically predictable, so why should there be no accountability when the consequences are deadly? Mrs. Brooks didn’t choose for her neighbor to bring a pit bull into the neighborhood, yet she paid the ultimate price for it. How is that fair?
rvasatxguy t1_iy5uq73 wrote
Yes I agree. Those are some eye opening statistics. I believe pit bulls make up 7-8% of the total US dog population yet they account for up to 69-70% of fatalities caused by dogs. This owner facing no charges for her dog causing this poor lady’s death is shocking.
Also that shock collar probably agitated that dog more so I’m not sure how that was supposed to act as a deterrent.
stinkemrpink t1_iy8el2z wrote
That’s not true, “pits” are one of the most common dog breeds in America and Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds are statistically more aggressive than pit bulls.
Diet_Coke t1_iy5nh3x wrote
That's just not how the law works, the owner was summoned, charged with the actual crimes she committed, and the dog was euthanized.
I'm curious when you say that "the dangers of pit bulls are statistically predictable" - what statistics are you referencing?
BurkeyTurger t1_iy5rlqy wrote
Slight pedantic correction: She was charged with what the CA felt like pursuing.
A CA charging or declining to charge someone for something does not mean they did or did not violate a particular section of Code.
EJH-RVA t1_iy5zqqz wrote
I think you know exactly what I mean when I say this was statistically predictable. If the woman had almost any other breed of dog, this wouldn’t have happened. But she had a pit bull and now someone is dead as a result.
Diet_Coke t1_iy62459 wrote
I don't know what you mean, that's why I asked. It just seems like one of those things everyone "just knows" but can't provide any kind of reputable source for. It's not like pitbulls are the only breed of dog capable of killing someone, if she had a mastiff, great Dane, cane Corso, German shepherd, rottweiler, doberman pinscher, etc etc etc with the likely history of trauma this pitbull had, someone would still be dead.
EJH-RVA t1_iy62kqr wrote
Those breeds are why I said almost any other breed. Pit bulls are responsible for more human fatalities and serious injuries from dog attacks than all other breeds combined. When these things happen, it’s almost always a pit bull. They shouldn’t be allowed in neighborhoods.
Diet_Coke t1_iy638w3 wrote
Yeah sure, other than basically any breed of dog that gets to be over 50 lbs, or a particularly ornery 30 lb dog, no other breed of dog than pitbull could have killed someone.
>Pit bulls are responsible for more human fatalities and serious injuries from dog attacks than all other breeds combined.
Where does that information come from?
rvasatxguy t1_iy64nex wrote
This is just one quick snapshot. Otherwise tons of similar info on google. If you see one with Pit Bulls not at the top of the list and at the bottom, it’s probably because its for breeds least likely to not kill a human.
Diet_Coke t1_iy65q3a wrote
Source: dogbites dot org - tells you everything you need to know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogsbite.org
In her book Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, author Bronwen Dickey writes that DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being "co-opted by the 'pit bull lobby', a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters."[14] In an interview with Psychology Today, Dickey says "The site's founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as 'science whores,' which alone is enough to discredit her claims."[15]
In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org's claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, for example, says identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable."[2]
Radio Canada accused DogsBite.org of being critical of scientific experts and of using the term "science whore". Colleen Lynn, the site's founder, responded by saying that the term does not come from her[16] and that it has only been used three times since the creation of the site in 2007.[17] Radio Canada also criticized DogsBite.org for counting as a death caused by pit bulls the death of a man who died in 2007 from atherosclerosis and problems with alcohol four months after he was severely injured by pit bulls.[18][17]
rvasatxguy t1_iy67p4r wrote
They do have their detractors, but even still, stats consistently list pit bulls at the top, & sad head lines like this one almost always involve pit bulls. Not always, but most of the time and that correlates with many of the results of the studies that are done.
Diet_Coke t1_iy68uzm wrote
They have their detractors because it's a website run by someone with an axe to grind who has no background in statistics. Do we even have to go over why 'it matches the headlines' is a poor argument and open to so many different sources of bias?
Go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
And look at 2022
And you will see that yes, there are pitbulls and mixes but there are plenty of other breeds as well as dog packs and unknown breeds. You will also see that pitbulls and pitbull mixes aren't the majority, and that is despite there being way more pitbulls than almost any other breed on there.
[deleted] t1_iy8dagi wrote
[removed]
rvasatxguy t1_iy6af8p wrote
I think they have an axe to grind because of tragedies like this one. And this comes on the heels of those little kids in TN getting mauled to death by the family pit bulls two months ago. So yeah people can always split hairs on these studies but this breed is always doing real damage. Other breeds can nip and bite and they do, but mauling is another story.
Diet_Coke t1_iy6b6vx wrote
They actually have an axe to grind because they were mauled by a pitbull. Their own trauma is being expressed through violence on a mass scale because they advocate breed bans. Kind of ironic in a way.
Please note, you're throwing around the word 'studies' but haven't shared anything except for a website run by someone with no background in statistics. If you wanted to look at statistics on race and crime in humans, would you start on a neo-nazi website?
rvasatxguy t1_iy6emt1 wrote
I mean something tells me you’re gonna keep refuting it. But charts/studies like this are all over. Then the headlines come out. And sometimes it’s a labrador or a german shepherd. They’re also on the chart. I don’t think its even close.
oh_hello_rva t1_iy7y0bs wrote
A+, u/rvasatxguy.
If anybody's genuinely curious about DogsBite and any of the other statistics, simply go to the site and follow the links to local news stories. See if you think they're all a hoax, or just regular local journalism about deaths in their communities. Follow up and send questions to them if you want to.
rvasatxguy t1_iy9fbip wrote
Yeah that site has all the links to dog related maulings. Crazy how many of those are pit bulls. Those dogs do more damage than most other breeds.
Diet_Coke t1_iy87ybb wrote
My dude, I literally handed you a refutation on a silver platter. Look at the wikipedia link. All you have to do is scroll down, there's a column for breed. Anyone with MS Paint can make a bar graph, it is just not a source. The source on yours, Animals 24-7, looks like an alarmist publication, go to their website and the literal first story is "“We can’t live like this in a world where dogs eat children”. Come the fuck on.
Here's one issue with relying on media reports as a source: dog breeds are highly likely to be misclassified. If a boxer attacks someone and a bystander thinks it was a pitbull, that is going to get reported as a pitbull attack. The CDC stopped collecting dog breed information in bite statistics because it is so difficult to accurately classify.
EJH-RVA t1_iy63wcr wrote
If you want to research, DogsBite.org is a great place to start.
Diet_Coke t1_iy647zs wrote
DogsBite.org was started by someone with an axe to grind and frequently publishes misleading and incorrect information, you should look into them more. That's like starting on Breitbart to get an idea of crime statistics.
EJH-RVA t1_iy64z5j wrote
That’s not at all true, but it’s a common claim in the pro-pit bull community. Every instance they report is sourced and includes linked articles. You should check your facts before spreading lies and mis-information. The fact remains, someone is dead because her neighbor owned a pit bull who mauled her. It was a pit bull because it’s almost always a pit bull. Full stop.
Diet_Coke t1_iy65dhm wrote
I'm not the pro-pit bull community, I'm just a person who knows what logical fallacies are. For example, even if dogbites.org is 100% reliable and factual (even though they're not and all you have to do is look at their Wikipedia page) all they're doing is passing on media reports which are rife with their own issues. Do you seriously think they're getting a DNA test on every dog bite they report?
EJH-RVA t1_iy6686p wrote
Your comment speculating about the pit bull’s “likely history of trauma” suggests otherwise.
I judge a site by their content, not their Wikipedia page.
Diet_Coke t1_iy66pjs wrote
Yes, it's a fact that pitbulls and pitbull mixes have been done dirty by humans. There are a ton of them in shelters, and shelters aren't a good environment for dogs to be in. That a dog of any kind that wasn't specifically trained as a guard dog viciously attacks anyone is a sign of trauma.
You're not judging the site at all, as a matter of fact. Judging implies some level of critical thinking. You're just accepting it as truth without critical thinking being involved. Here's an obvious question you haven't thought to ask before advocating for the murder of people's pets: what kind of background in statistics does the owner of dogsbite dot org have?
EJH-RVA t1_iy67f62 wrote
So the two pit bulls who were purchased as 8-week old puppies, were raised as family dogs and then mauled and killed their owners two babies recently in Tenn., what trauma caused them to do that?
Diet_Coke t1_iy67how wrote
What's the difference between an anecdote and data?
This 8 year old was severely mauled by a Labrador a couple months ago (source) - are labradors mindless killing machines?
EJH-RVA t1_iy67saw wrote
OK, I’m done here. It was a pit bull. Because it’s almost always a pit bull. Your distraction deflection attempts won’t ever change that.
Diet_Coke t1_iy68au5 wrote
It's like they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - and you have not arrived at your conclusions by way of reason.
EJH-RVA t1_iy68sry wrote
Except she was mauled by a pit bull. I’m not sure what you’re debating here. Are you suggesting it was actually a golden doodle?
Diet_Coke t1_iy696fb wrote
Same dog, same circumstances in life, but as a golden doodle instead of a pitbull? Yeah sure, it absolutely could have been. There's nothing about pitbulls as a breed that makes them more likely than any other breed to attack anyone. It comes down to the individual dog.
EJH-RVA t1_iy69c7g wrote
Except it’s almost always a pit bull. Statistics.
Diet_Coke t1_iy6blst wrote
Except it's very clearly not and you've repeatedly failed to provide a decent source on that. I'm glad you know the word statistics, now go learn the words bias and fallacy.
LastCallBee t1_iy8bj4u wrote
Is this not correct?
https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/amp
I’d love to be an apologist for pitbulls but I don’t ever see it happening. They are objectively more dangerous animals to own for both owners and other people. Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.
I feel like there are just as many bullshit pit lover studies as there may be skewed pit hater studies regardless. I found a lot of both.
Diet_Coke t1_iy8d4xr wrote
The first one looks like garbage, its first citation is a YouGov online poll and then it has several citations of the publisher of Animals 24-7.
Hard to assess how good the second one is because it is a meta study and so it's not super easy to dig into the methodology. I believe any study that's looking at reported breeds is open to error as pitbulls are the most likely breed to be misidentified.
>Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.
I have repeatedly linked this wikipedia list of dog bite fatalities in this thread, you can look at it yourself and see that while there are pitbulls and pitbull mixes, they are not even close to the majority of cases despite being much more prevalent than many of the other dogs on there.
[deleted] t1_iy8aq4k wrote
[deleted]
t00oldforthisshit t1_iy67747 wrote
Correction, you judge a site on whether it confirms your biases or not.
Poopforce1s t1_iy9gijo wrote
"During the 15-year period of 2005 to 2019, canines killed 521 Americans. Two dog breeds, pit bulls (346) and rottweilers (51), contributed to 76% (397) of these deaths. 35 different dog breeds were involved in the remaining fatal dog maulings"
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019.php
Diet_Coke t1_iy9id1p wrote
Please read the rest of this thread for more information on dogsbite dot org, both other commenters have cited them and the issues with them have been well discussed.
It's not a good source, it's basically the same as referencing Alex Jones to prove that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
LastCallBee t1_iy8a3nm wrote
LOL Colette burner + bad info + L ratio
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments