Another sad Pit Story

[mrose_s]

I always thought we were pretty good here with our news about pit's and dog attacks but i guess not.

Just 4 days ago i was walking buster and saw this headline
Cop's pit bull savages girl, 6

I wanted to buy the apaper but i didnt have enough, luckily we had it at home.

but on the way I was thinking
well it was a pit so it wasnt a police dog like a GSD, so there is no reason to mention he is a cop because that has nothing to do with the story and if it was a dog like a cocker, the breed wouldnt be mentioned.

Just goes to show what the media will do. Well anyway, i went to the site and found the article :)
its here
http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,15691897%255E13569,00.html

[oriondw]

Something I dont understand,

Do you think a bite by a Pit/GSD/Rott/Dobe/"Insert any other big dog here" and a Shi Tzu is the same as far as lethality goes?

The reason why they usually dont mention breeds or attacks is because of very little damage done. Im sure if any big dog attack and killed or severely mauled a child you would have the breed mentioned. It all hangs on severety of the attack and the person (parents) of the person who was attacked.

[mrose_s]

exactly, nobody cares if a little dog snaps, except i know that if our little daisy really wanted to go, she could do some serious damage to our faces.

Anyway, its not about that, it doesnt matter what sort of dog attacks, it still happens

[oriondw]

Anyway, its not about that, it doesnt matter what sort of dog attacks, it still happens

Such is the nature of things.

[Babyblue5290]

"When the schoolteacher entered the house the pit bull managed to break free of its collar..."

So was the dog chained up?

[beagle_lovergirl]

I cant believe he shot the dog! It was the owners fault for not have trained the dog the right way.

[bonster]

(the mother...)
"She said she did not blame the policeman." -Huh ????

[mrose_s]

I hate it when they shoot them, really, I an't think of a more horrible way to die.

[oriondw]

I hate it when they shoot them, really, I an't think of a more horrible way to die.


Depending on where they shot them its painless.


Believe it or not, you dont feel nuch pain when you get shot, you feel it later.

Ofcourse that depends on bullet alot, but I dont see cops using hollow points :)

[gaddylovesdogs]

The policemen returned home and shot the dog.
OK, now that's just stupid. They could at least euthanize it properly.

[oriondw]

OK, now that's just stupid. They could at least euthanize it properly.
Ah didnt see that when i first read the article.

Agree, that is stupid.

[gapeach]

It is entirely the owner's fault. And you would think they would have socialized this dog with children, the lady is a school teacher, for crying out loud! If you're gonna have a dog, teach it some manners. It's obvious that they didn't care at all for the dog or he couldn't have just shot him like that.

[Renee750il]

How can you shoot - in cold blood - anything you love? These people just sound callous no matter how you look at it. Frightening when you think that one is a teacher and the other a cop . . . just the kind of people who don't need to be in either profession.

[casablanca1]

>A six-year-old girl needed 30 stitches after being savaged by a policeman's pet dog.<

Bad dog.

[Renee750il]

Bad dogs generally are a reflection of bad owners. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one.

[casablanca1]

From what I could tell the blame lies in the dog who tried to eat a kid from the spine out, and the cop who owned such a rotten animal.

[Renee750il]

Like I said . . . you find a "bad dog" you'll find a bad owner just about every time.

[casablanca1]

Well, that's kind of a given. I generally assume criminals had a bad upbringing too.

[Renee750il]

The 'nature vs. nurture' theories in human behaviour have advocates both way. Human behaviour, I have found, is much more aberrant and unpredictable than canine behaviour. Dogs are far easier to train than humans, and tend to have a less irrationally combative - and irrational - nature than we do.

[casablanca1]

The 'nature vs. nurture' theories in human behaviour have advocates both way. Human behaviour, I have found, is much more aberrant and unpredictable than canine behaviour. Dogs are far easier to train than humans, and tend to have a less irrationally combative - and irrational - nature than we do.

You obviously never owned a terrier. Kidding, kidding. I agree that dogs are noble, but that's because we created them to be that way. They're carnivores who can kill us, so they have to be noble creatures or we're in serious trouble. Notice we didn't create the domesticated cat to weigh 50lbs. My point was that this is a rotten dog and I see nothing particularly sad about his/her being shot to death. OK, the likelihood is that the owner was to blame too - at the very least, he was careless with the dog, which is pretty bad when you consider the consequences - but the dog was not an innocent actor. We say they can be noble, ie, forebearing and forgiving, so why do so many people flinch from holding dogs to account when they are not noble?

[Renee750il]

Actually, I have owned Terriers. Independent little cusses - but some of my favorite critters. Filas are infinitely more self-determined than any Terrier though. :eek:

Did I not say there was plenty of blame to go around? My point about the way the owner dispatched the dog is that it says a great deal about what kind of dog owner he was to begin with - someone who should only have one of those robotic dogs.

[mrose_s]

i don't think he even deserves that. I was thinking, that in my lifetime, if the sun was about to blow up or something, rather than waiting to persih and burn, i was thinking of suicide, (im not suicidal don't worry) but i didnt know how, like, i love life, i dont want to die and if i had to, i want it to be pretty painless, i would NEVER be able to shoot myself, if i had to kill myself, i would probably sneak into a vet clinic and euthinize myself.

I know all that sounds very morbid but i don't want to burn to death, hopefully i will be long gone before i have to even think about that... again

[bridey_01]

I believe all dogs, of all breeds, are born as basically good. We warp them and twist them sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. Then we find it convenient to blame them. No dog is born evil. No dog should be shot for actions it commited due to it's owners ignorance.

[mrose_s]

exactly, nothing is born evil, whether we shape their behaviour like that intentionally or not, as far as i have seen, it is usually the carers fault

[casablanca1]

Did I not say there was plenty of blame to go around? My point about the way the owner dispatched the dog is that it says a great deal about what kind of dog owner he was to begin with - someone who should only have one of those robotic dogs.

Saying that there's plenty of blame to go around is, in my experience, usually a way of avoiding laying blame where it belongs. I think the owner was to blame too, but it's a little evasive to say that there was fault on both sides, since this board (like most dog-centric places) focuses almost entirely on human error.

[Renee750il]

We are the humans in the equation, and regardless of where the blame lies, the responsibility lies completely with us.

I think you'll find, as you get to know me better, that I tend to choose my words carefully, following the advice of the March Hare to Alice:

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least I mean what I say that's the same thing, you know."

"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that `I see what I eat' is the same thing as `I eat what I see'!" -- Lewis Carroll

[bridey_01]

There's no such thing as a "bad" dog. A dog is the sum of its experiences and instincts, not a human being with such concepts as malicious intent and such.

[Renee750il]

Gotta admit, Bridey, a couple of mine were completely capable of doing things with 'malice aforethought' and it wasn't because they were taught to act that way. I just had to be aware of the propensity and make sure I kept on top of things - it was good mental exercise trying to stay ahead sometimes - especially with Buffy, who took premeditation to a whole new level . . . Let's just say the meter reader still talks about her - and he works in a different county now and tells the guys he works with that there are NO scary dogs on any other routes . . . One thing Buffy did for him - she cured him of his fear of dogs! It was my responsibility, though, to make sure she understood the inhibitions about actually biting . . . and I did put her up when he came to read the meter. He came to understand the dynamic of dealing with her the day she trotted quietly down the drive without barking. She sat down demurely - under the meter on the milk house and the poor guy thought she had decided to be friends and started to get out of the truck. I was flying down the driveway and yelled at him to get back in the truck. He stood there for a second, but when I yelled to him the second time he looked back at Buffy and got back in the truck. She lunged just as he closed the door . . . She was trying to sucker him away from the safety of the truck so she could terrorize him . . . He never, ever forgot that lesson, lol! And neither did I!

[bridey_01]

Hmm. Not in my experience, but there is always that one dog that teaches you new things and changes your mind on all your old ideas. Then again, I don't think this pit bull just thought "Hmm, a kid, you know what? I think i might just break my collar and mosey on over there and rip her to pieces"

[Renee750il]

Buffy definitely was never the typical dog, lol! She knew exactly what she was doing. She was a completely different creature on a leash or off of her own property (if she had to bring in some runaway cows) - I could take her anywhere and she was totally reliable.

Then again, I don't think this pit bull just thought "Hmm, a kid, you know what? I think i might just break my collar and mosey on over there and rip her to pieces"

I doubt that went through the Pit's mind at all, either. An attack like that is most often the result of conditioning and criminally poor ownership - with some tragically irresponsible breeding thrown into the mix, and the whole chain of events is usually sparked by more than one thing at that given moment.

The worst owners seem to be attracted to the dogs with the worst temperament traits.

[bridey_01]

I agree totally. I really dislike this kind of thing, giving a bad name to so many breeds.
It's the reason i can't take german shepherds or dobes to the parties i perform at, much as i love them both.

[Renee750il]

It's a shame, too, especially since kids and German Shepherds are just so fascinated with each other on such a basic level.

[mrose_s]

it really gets to me when some person can attack and murder 30 people and get life in gaol, but a dog snaps and they loose their life, when usually this is learnt or triggered behaviour

[Renee750il]

Doesn't seem very just, does it?

[mrose_s]

yeah, i like you renee, your smart

[casablanca1]

There's no such thing as a "bad" dog. A dog is the sum of its experiences and instincts, not a human being with such concepts as malicious intent and such.

So there's no such thing as a good dog, either? I find that position very hard to respect. They're not humans, but they certainly can have malicious intent. Unless you believe that all dog attacks are total accidents, that the dog was just running and jumping and happened to hit another dog or person with his teeth :) Their grasp on the future is more limited than ours, and I don't think a dog plans months in advance to avenge himself on some annoying kid or neighbor dog, but I certainly think they can make short-term plans. I've seen one dog set up his own excuse for biting by dropping a toy in the middle of a hallway, and then roaring out to 'defend' it from an unwitting passerby, and another dog who created a similar situation by dropping kibble - the one thing she was allowed to guard - in a neat line around the first floor of a house so that when the new family cat came downstairs, she could chase her 'away from her kibble' ie, back upstairs.

[Renee750il]

That's where our responsibility comes into play. It's up to us to draw the line and teach our dogs that those kinds of stunts just won't cut it.

Or, a bad owner can either allow the behaviour to continue or even encourage it.

It's up to us to determine how much we allow our dogs to get by with.

[casablanca1]

Yes, I do get your point.

[bridey_01]

If the dog is allowed to engage in such behaviours without consequence, it has learned that it can! Thus such behaviour becomes experience.

[casablanca1]

If the dog is allowed to engage in such behaviours without consequence, it has learned that it can! Thus such behaviour becomes experience.

But what you were saying earlier was that there are no bad dogs, only dogs who have learned what they can get away with. We're not debating whether dogs are instinctual or intelligent, we're arguing if they can be held to moral account when they act violently. I believe that no matter how at fault, to blame or responsible the owner is for a dog getting free to hurt or kill, the dog ultimately had the choice to go or stop. A dog who choses to go should get no pity, he's a disgrace to his race and a danger to ours.

[bonster]

Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?

You are placing the dog's judgement in the human context.

Shouldn't we humans get our own house in order first?

As for 'moral account' - I wonder what that should mean?

If two kids fight and one seriously injures the other, there would of course be no question of the death penalty!!! and questions would surely be asked of the parents.

But a dog (with an owner/"parent") attacking any human?? Shoot the dog -- job done? How is that moral?

I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate.

[bridey_01]

How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.

[casablanca1]

"Would an unleashed dog who ran into traffic (maybe with the 'violent' idea of chasing a bird) and got hit get pity? The dog can chose to go or stop - right?"

Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument. A dog running free who gets hit by a car is hardly comparable to a dog who uses his freedom to attack another dog or a person. (of course, if the dog gets hit while crossing a road to attack someone, that's perfect)

"I think we have enough disgraces within our own race to deal with before we start picking holes in another that we have chosen to domesticate."

I think dogs are perfect. But when individual dogs start trying to literally pick holes in me or my dogs, I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.

[casablanca1]

How can they be held responsable if they have learned these behaviours and never once been told it is wrong, nor corrected for it?
You can get any dog to attack someone if it is constantly allowed to display aggressive behaviours without any kind of input from you. This deosn't mean they are "bad" dogs.

If we never interupt a normal dog's agression displays, it's true that they might escalate to the point where the dog will bite. It's not true that the dog's agression will typically progress to the point where they'll savage their victim. That's a very unusual behavior for a dog, and it comes from a very specific situation or dog. A normal dog might do it if pushed very, very hard -a person, for instance, who is attacking the dog physically and repeatedly and the dog can't flee. A normal dog, in normal circumstances, bites and backs off. This is pretty ingrained behavior, and isn't easily overturned even if their owner is a jerk who encourages the dog to be aggressive. That's why the worst jerks always wind up with fighting breeds, who are less inclined to back off.

My definition of a bad dog isn't one who has ever bitten. All dogs will bite, under the right circumstances. But I've seen dogs who enjoyed biting, who throughly relished their attacks on humans or their fellow dogs, and those are bad dogs, no matter whose fault it was that they weren't better trained or managed.

[bonster]

Oh, for heaven's sake, try to come up with a decent argument.
:( Just asking a question...

I want something done to solve the problem. Saying that it's the owner's fault doesn't solve the problem of what to do with a dog who has (through whoever's fault) learned the joys of biting and killing.

In this case, the dog was shot, but what would your "something" be, how would you solve the problem?

I think there are two levels to this problem and that is why this discussion seems a little heated.

In specific cases sadly it may be necessary to put down or permaently kennel dogs gone bad. I don't think many would disagree.

However, having been at the end of agressive dogs once or twice I do try and look beyond the immediate situation (thankfully no harm has come...) and think 'why did this happen' and 'how could it be prevented' rather than wanting some kind of immediate 'revenge' against the animal.

Surely, generally/longer term addressing 'whoever' is at fault in a strategic way (though education, common practice, regulation, law etc) has to be the way? I mean - to try and stop dogs 'going bad' in the first place. That duty has to be with/placed upon the breeder/owner/keeper and is probably why they keep being mentioned. If this isn't done - idiot owners can get their pets shot over and over.... where does it end?

[casablanca1]

I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse. That's never a contentious issue in the dog world. What is a contentious issue is the idea that it's more moral to kill some dogs.

[showpug]

Although I do agree that humane euthanasia may be the immediate answer for some dogs that have become vicious, I still stop and question the future of the owner. So we have a vicious dog attack and the dog is shot/euthanised. Okay, problem solved??....NOT REALLY. What happens when this owner goes out and buys another dog? Just another situation repeat. So we accomplish what in the major scheme of things?? There will still be horrible owners, vicious dogs and people getting attacked or killed. If there is no reprocussion for bad owners, than this problem will only escalate.

On another note, dogs are not "moral" animals. This is actually IMO what sets them apart from humans. Since morality is not an issue that is present in a dogs mind, then wouldn't it only make sense to blame an attack like this on behavioral instinct? I once again want to know more about the exact way this attack happened. I want to know what the girl was doing...where exactly the dog was...how exactly it happened. When I know TRUE facts, not "media" facts, then that is when I draw my final conclusion on if this was a nature or nurture issue.

[bonster]

I think there's no particular value in talking about education and legal recourse

The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.

[casablanca1]

The article was obviously written with the same sentiment - it doesn't mention anything about owner-responsibility, in fact it says that the victims mother didn't blame the dog owning policeman, and does seem to put it that he shot the dog, she (the victim's mother) was happy... and that's that. Maybe not the whole story... but not the most balanced view and hardly educative.

The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.

[oriondw]

The reporter was merely reporting on a dog attack without much depth. I was trying to discuss the side of dog aggression that doggy people avoid like the plague. We all love to natter on about training and education and humane treatment, but when that emphasize-the-positive attitude turns as far south as it has in recent years - time after time, I've seen an emotional outpouring of grief and pity for a dog who's attacked someone's child or someone's pet, while the victim of the attack is barely mentioned - it makes me think this is more about making us feel good than about helping dogs. How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill other dogs? How does it help dogs to save a dog who'll kill a child? How does it help anyone to keep violent, dangerous dogs alive? We blame the media for bad news stories about certain breeds, we blame the media for not discussing bad owners, we blame bad owners for everything else, but there's a huge share of blame on our heads for protecting bad dogs either in word or deed.

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

Thats just stupid to blame dogs for others stupid actions.

Its not up to you to decide what people can and cant keep. I guess you support banning all "violent and dangerous" dogs eh? Pits, rotts, labs... poodles. They all can be violent and dangerous :rolleyes:

[bridey_01]

I agree with orion there. I also should have brought up the point that showpug mentioned, that dogs are not moral animals. If we don't teach them what is right and wrong (in our opinion) then they will naturally form their own rules.
I've worked with alot of "aggressive" dogs that just needed to be shown that what they were doing was wrong. Thank god most of us do "natter" on about training and education. I would hate to think of the implications of not having either of them.

[casablanca1]

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

That's true only in the most dramatic, highly publicized cases. Which frequently involve a dog who had earlier attacked someone with less drastic results and gotten away with it. Unless the damage is severe - permanent disability or death, the law frequently comes down on the side of property rights, ie, the dog is the owner's property and property rights in our society are pretty firmly defended.

[/QUOTE]Thats just stupid to blame dogs for others stupid actions.
Its not up to you to decide what people can and cant keep. I guess you support banning all "violent and dangerous" dogs eh? Pits, rotts, labs... poodles. They all can be violent and dangerous :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's the reasoned voice of the badass breed advocate. Look, I said nothing about breed bans and nothing about breed at all. My point, which you've chosen to ignore, is that bad dogs, dogs who bite without reason and maul their victims (and if you recognize your dogs in that description, that's not my fault) are to be blamed, held responsible, etc., etc. because dogs are thinking animals whose nobility, intelligence and heart are as known to us as our skin. How can anyone deny the responsibility of dogs to understand our race? A dog who bites is not in ignorance of aggression, he's versed in it. They're not boxes, or computers, requiring programming and living in a state of innocence if they're not trained. They're animals, with natural aggression and a domestication that took centuries, that separated wolf from dog by curbing aggression and instilling inhibition against bites. Dogs who bite aren't
in ignorance of what we expect, they're disregarding what we expect.

[Renee750il]

Umm. If a small dog attacks a big dog and gets killed, big dog will automatically get blamed. If a child smacks a dog with a stick few times and then gets mauled dog will get put to sleep. Everytime a dog does something that people like you think they are not supposed to do, agression wise, they are labeled vicious and dangerous.

That is far too true! I can't count how many times I've had to dive in and stop a child who hasn't been taught - or sometimes who just enjoys cruelty and bullying - from tormenting an animal. I take the opportunity to try and teach them at least something about the necessity - and rewards - of having respect for animals. It's not natural for a dog to be aggressive toward humans. Even wolves are not inclined to be aggressive toward humans, prefering to avoid confrontation with us unless driven by extreme hunger or fear. We are all too quick to label any kind of biting or attacking behavior as 'aggressive' when it is, in reality, defensive behavior. True human aggressiveness in a canine is an aberration and the result of irresponsible human tampering.

It's always tragic when a child is hurt or killed in some way; it's even more tragic when it was completely preventable but was facilitated by irresponsible and stupid adults. It's even worse when the child that is hurt by a dog or any other animal isn't the one who has treated the animal abusively, but is paying the price for the actions of others.

[bonster]

My point, which you've chosen to ignore, is that bad dogs, dogs who bite without reason and maul their victims (and if you recognize your dogs in that description, that's not my fault) are to be blamed, held responsible, etc., etc.

Its been said a couple of times that sometimes it is necessary to permanently confine or even euthanise dogs gone "really bad". That is a sad fact, and the price they pay. Doesn't that agree with your point?

Above you mention "without reason"

You seem surprised that on a dog-forum the majority of us are upset by incidents of 'dogs going bad' (especially when poorly/partially reported) and want to discuss the causes (what we believe the 'reason' might be: there must be a reason).

[casablanca1]

Its been said a couple of times that sometimes it is necessary to permanently confine or even euthanise dogs gone "really bad". That is a sad fact, and the price they pay. Doesn't that agree with your point?).

Yes, it does agree with my point. But it was buried beneath an avalanche of accusations that I was rejecting training and education, so I was responding to that absurdity.

Above you mention "without reason" You seem surprised that on a dog-forum the majority of us are upset by incidents of 'dogs going bad' (especially when poorly/partially reported) and want to discuss the causes (what we believe the 'reason' might be: there must be a reason).

I'm not surprised there's discussion of cause, I'm shocked there's rejection of one cause - the dog. In my experience, there are bad dogs, and I'm not sure what the practical advantage is of pretending that all dog attacks are linked to abuse, are provoked by their victim, or otherwise are about an innocent dog and a violent human. Some dogs are just bad dogs. The closest we get around here to calling that is to say they're badly handled. Which is a closeted way of saying 'bad dog,' since a good dog can slip its leash without massacring a tot or a Chihuahua.

I've seen bad dogs who were products of abuse and neglect and poor training. But I've seen dogs who were doted on and trained and treated well who were as aggressive as alligators and about as dangerous. I understand why the dog world discusses reasons and causes, I just don't understand the wholesale rejection of 'nature' in favor of 'nurture.' It's particularly odd coming from the dog world, considering the pure breeds only exist because of the enthusiastic pursuit of genetics as destiny.

[Renee750il]

I don't think the nature vs. nurture argument is even viable. Both are relevant. I've seen dogs whose natures were gentle, loving and trusting who had been horribly abused; they bore the whole ordeal stoicly, never turning, never offering to defend themselves in any way. On the other hand, I've run across dogs who had terrible defensive temperaments from an early stage that were gentled and learned to trust and love through patient and consistent teaching. Nature and nurture most often go hand in hand; sometimes one outweighs the other, and sometimes you run into a nature that no amount of nurture will overcome. It has to be evaluated on an individual basis; generalizations just don't apply with any accuracy.

A dog that is temperamentally a time bomb can also be laid on our doorstep, as some human was responsible for purposely bad or negligent breeding. In one way or another, the responsibility does come back to us and we have no right to try to sidestep our way out of it.

[BigDog2191]

Yes, it does agree with my point. But it was buried beneath an avalanche of accusations that I was rejecting training and education, so I was responding to that absurdity.



I'm not surprised there's discussion of cause, I'm shocked there's rejection of one cause - the dog. In my experience, there are bad dogs, and I'm not sure what the practical advantage is of pretending that all dog attacks are linked to abuse, are provoked by their victim, or otherwise are about an innocent dog and a violent human. Some dogs are just bad dogs. The closest we get around here to calling that is to say they're badly handled. Which is a closeted way of saying 'bad dog,' since a good dog can slip its leash without massacring a tot or a Chihuahua.

I've seen bad dogs who were products of abuse and neglect and poor training. But I've seen dogs who were doted on and trained and treated well who were as aggressive as alligators and about as dangerous. I understand why the dog world discusses reasons and causes, I just don't understand the wholesale rejection of 'nature' in favor of 'nurture.' It's particularly odd coming from the dog world, considering the pure breeds only exist because of the enthusiastic pursuit of genetics as destiny.

A serial killer is formed normally by something as a kid--puppy. Usually it's a abuse or being molested--something that sticks with them forever and traumatizes them.

This is why the killer usually targets people that are similar to the person who had hurt them in the past.

Same with a dog. I heard about a woman that would beat her dog every single day--a big German Shepherd. And to this day, the German Shepherd pees himself when he sees a woman.

It is likely someday if the owner has a visitor that is a woman--he will attack it.

You say it's a bad dog but ever heard the saying: bad dogs aren't born, they're made?

[showpug]

A serial killer is formed normally by something as a kid--puppy. Usually it's a abuse or being molested--something that sticks with them forever and traumatizes them.

This is why the killer usually targets people that are similar to the person who had hurt them in the past.

Same with a dog. I heard about a woman that would beat her dog every single day--a big German Shepherd. And to this day, the German Shepherd pees himself when he sees a woman.

It is likely someday if the owner has a visitor that is a woman--he will attack it.

You say it's a bad dog but ever heard the saying: bad dogs aren't born, they're made?

On the other hand, you have serial killers that never had a bad childhood, or what about all the people that have horrible things happen to them as children and yet they never grow up to kill. The same could apply to dogs. I agree with Renee in the sense that in these situations we just can't generalize because they are all just so different.

When Ted Bundy was 3 or 4 years old his babysitter fell asleep on the floor. When she awoke Ted had stuck knives in the floor to outline her body. Sound too far fetched to be true? Well, it's not, it actually happened. Now you can't tell me that there isn't a whole lot of NATURE taking place there! :eek:

[mrose_s]

that was his baby sitter, not his mother, and i doubt the report shed light onexactly how the child was raised, maybe somehting as simple as seeing a knife stabbed or dropped into a board and than wandering and watching Playschool draw outlines around peoples hands wth a texter created a link, truggered by something the babysitter did?

or perhaps those peopel with problems that had a good childhood have mental issues? There are a great many things to be taken into account here

[BigDog2191]

On the other hand, you have serial killers that never had a bad childhood, or what about all the people that have horrible things happen to them as children and yet they never grow up to kill. The same could apply to dogs. I agree with Renee in the sense that in these situations we just can't generalize because they are all just so different.

When Ted Bundy was 3 or 4 years old his babysitter fell asleep on the floor. When she awoke Ted had stuck knives in the floor to outline her body. Sound too far fetched to be true? Well, it's not, it actually happened. Now you can't tell me that there isn't a whole lot of NATURE taking place there! :eek:

He also saw a naked woman at a very young age. Which drove him to believe that women were just dolls that could be played with or even killed--they weren't human beings to him.

That said, it was a TRAUMATIZING experience.

Can you give me an example of a serial killing without motive?

[MyDogsLoveMe]

I agree with what I read here. I own a 20 month pit, she is a angle, been raised properly, loved etc but like with any animal it will take just once. The first time pits taste blood they will go for more. Then on the other side of the fence any dog depending on how it is raised will be more docille if raised that way. Both my dogs are outside during the day, inside at night, my pit knows my voice and the change if I am upset, she will act accordinally, but she pushed her limits also. Any large breed dog if bred to be mean will do just that.

[showpug]

He also saw a naked woman at a very young age. Which drove him to believe that women were just dolls that could be played with or even killed--they weren't human beings to him.

That said, it was a TRAUMATIZING experience.

Can you give me an example of a serial killing without motive?

Seeing a naked woman is a traumatizing experience :confused: We are talking about a little (as in 3 or 4 years old) boy here. Many little boys see their Moms naked when they are that young and they don't grow up to be killers.

I know there is a lot that goes into this subject...trust me, I have spent a huge deal of time studying the subject along with taking serial murder when I was in college. It never stops facinating me.

When you ask the motive question, that is such a broad question and in order to properly answer it one would have to truly define motive. In these dog attacks you could argue that the dog had motive and that was to act upon instinct. I don't know if I buy the reasons serial killers kill as motive. It seems much deeper than collecting on a life insurance policy or covering up an affair. Serial killers kill for much deeper reasons than something like motive.

[BigDog2191]

Seeing a naked woman is a traumatizing experience :confused: We are talking about a little (as in 3 or 4 years old) boy here. Many little boys see their Moms naked when they are that young and they don't grow up to be killers.

I know there is a lot that goes into this subject...trust me, I have spent a huge deal of time studying the subject along with taking serial murder when I was in college. It never stops facinating me.

When you ask the motive question, that is such a broad question and in order to properly answer it one would have to truly define motive. In these dog attacks you could argue that the dog had motive and that was to act upon instinct. I don't know if I buy the reasons serial killers kill as motive. It seems much deeper than collecting on a life insurance policy or covering up an affair. Serial killers kill for much deeper reasons than something like motive.

He saw it at a young age... yes, it may not seem traumatizing to you but apparently it was to him.

Yes, it was deeper. And you just proved my point--they kill for deep reasons. There is something that triggers that deep reason. Something HAS to trigger it, it doesn't come on it's own.

I don't if it was his mom or not... but there's a difference between seeing "mom" naked or some stranger through a window or something... we don't know what age he saw it at, either.

He saw her naked and thought of her as nothing but a toy--not as a human being. It may not have been the REASON he killed but it may have set the path. Why do you think he targeted women only?

"Serial killers kill for much deeper reasons than something like motive."

Motive=reason.

Besides, dogs are much different than people. Dogs are lovers towards humans.

I feel and I'm sure a lot of people would agree, that they don't harbor anger or resentment, they don't carry a grudge if you hit them or yell at them. Whereas an abused child could turn out to be an adult who finds himself in jail.

I know this is not the case all the time-- but it is in a lot. Why do you think most killers or people in prison always blame their parents for the way they turned out?

I saw a documentary on it, most of the way they act is acquired from a young age--usually a traumatizing experience or something that's repeatedly done like abuse-- I used to be bullied by this one person every day when I was a little younger... I let him push me around way too much. Finally, I exploded and I had sent the kid to the hospital.

It's the same thing-- you mentally can't take it anymore... until you explode--or implode.

[showpug]

He saw it at a young age... yes, it may not seem traumatizing to you but apparently it was to him.

Yes, it was deeper. And you just proved my point--they kill for deep reasons. There is something that triggers that deep reason. Something HAS to trigger it, it doesn't come on it's own.

I don't if it was his mom or not... but there's a difference between seeing "mom" naked or some stranger through a window or something... we don't know what age he saw it at, either.

He saw her naked and thought of her as nothing but a toy--not as a human being. It may not have been the REASON he killed but it may have set the path. Why do you think he targeted women only?

"Serial killers kill for much deeper reasons than something like motive."

Motive=reason.

Besides, dogs are much different than people. Dogs are lovers towards humans.

I feel and I'm sure a lot of people would agree, that they don't harbor anger or resentment, they don't carry a grudge if you hit them or yell at them. Whereas an abused child could turn out to be an adult who finds himself in jail.

I know this is not the case all the time-- but it is in a lot. Why do you think most killers or people in prison always blame their parents for the way they turned out?

I saw a documentary on it, most of the way they act is acquired from a young age--usually a traumatizing experience or something that's repeatedly done like abuse-- I used to be bullied by this one person every day when I was a little younger... I let him push me around way too much. Finally, I exploded and I had sent the kid to the hospital.

It's the same thing-- you mentally can't take it anymore... until you explode--or implode.

Have to say that I do agree with everything you have said. There is just a part of me that thinks there is a certain type of nature there in the first place that makes humans/dogs more suceptible to nuture error. I just hate to completley blame nurture. My sister and I were raised the same way and yet we are SO different. She loves roller coasters and they make me throw up, she loved watching "Nightmare on Elm Street" when we were kids and if I watched it it gave me horrible nightmares. People are born a certain way and if you get a certain "type" of person in the wrong nurturing situation (i.e. abuse, abandonment etc.) that is when things can take a turn for the worse. I think the same applies to dogs. Some are more susceptible to becoming a certain way if mishandled.

Glad to know there is someone else on the forum that has an interest in serial killers ;) I could discuss that subject all day...I guess I have to remember that this is a dog forum :rolleyes:

[BigDog2191]

Yeah, I do take an interest in it.

And I also had to remember it was a dog forum. :)