Pit Bulls and guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DG45

New member
There have been several threads on dog attacks recently due to news reports of attacks that required the use of guns to stop the attacking dog(s). All these threads have now been closed by the moderators, but before this issue leaves this forums consciousness, I'd like to say that the best time to solve the problem of a neighbors vicious dog is before that dog attacks and kills or maims someone.

Often the place to start is with the homeowners insurance policy of the offending neighbor.

Insurance companies just hate unforseen liabilities like vicious dogs being kept on an insureds' premises.

So, you might consider finding out who your offending neighbor has his homeowners insurance with and reporting the situation to that company. (Report it to their home office - not to their local agent.) You can usually find out who the insurance carrier is by simply calling around to local agents. In fact, your own insurer may insure your offending neighbor too, or your agent may know who does.

Insurance companies are keen to know when an insured is exposing them to potential lawsuits and losses by harboring unanticipated liabilities like this. Conversely, their local agents may not be that keen on knowing about it. Thats because insurance agents are basically salesmen and customer service men who don't like losing business. They don't pay losses. The home office does that, and believe me, that home office doesn't like paying out losses so it won't like being exposed to unanticipated liabilities by your offending neighbor.

However, don't expect an insurance company to just take your word that a vicious dog is on your neighbors premises without making absolutely sure that your claim is true.They will usually send an insurance inspector out to give his independent assessment of reports like this. If the inspector reports that there is indeed a vicious dog on the premises, the insurance company may cancel the offending neighbors homeowners policy, or not renew it.

Mortgage holders who are loss payees on this insurance for the amount they are owed, obviously can't tolerate a loss of this protection for their loan, and may call their loan if insurance is not quickly reestablished. This may be very difficult, or expensive (or both) for an offending neighbor to do once an insurance inspector has already reported a vicious dog or dogs being kept on his premises.
 
Let's change this around a wee bit...

... and let's find our neighbor's insurer, and let him know about the nasty arsenal of firearms and ammunition he has stockpiled in the home they are insuring.

Bet most TFL members won't like that idea of Big Brotherism too much.

Ironic, no?

How about this idea? Talk to your neighbor. Determine if the dogs really are vicious. In most cases, the degree of "viciousness" rises in direct proportion to the level of the individual's phobia. There are some vicious dogs out there. Most dogs aren't all that vicious, though, not even pits.

But to have good neighbors, it helps if one IS a good neighbor. Seems to me a few TFL posters have forgotten that, and prefer to:

1) try to pit the local government against a neighbor;
2) try to pit the neighbor's insurer against him;
3) scare or injure the neighbor's animal to condition it into submission.

I could understand 1) and 2), if the individual has tried to work with the neighbor, and the neighbor is, for lack of a better term, a complete jerk. I cannot condone 3) under any circumstance, so long as the animal remains in its own yard.

If the individual hasn't spoken with the neighbor, and tries to use methods such as these, that makes the individual, for lack of a better term, a complete jerk.

So dogs scare some people; they bark and make noise. Well, guess what? Perhaps your toddler makes a lot of noise. Perhaps your teenage driver scares people. Maybe your neighbors should try to have the local cops enforce noise ordinances on your kids, or notify your insurer about your new driver's relative lack of skill?

You'd probably prefer if they talked with you first, wouldn't you?

Mods, sorry for the rant, but this booger keeps popping up, whether about dogs or other problems. Guns and government should not be the primary interface between neighbors.
 
I think we need a law (federal mandate)...

that pit bulls should not be allowed to own guns.

Call your congress person today!
 
Many of the people who own vicious dogs rent their homes. While the actual owner of the property will likely have a policy, it's unlikely that the tenant will.

It'd be hard to prove negligence on the part of the owner if a tenant holds possession. One could contact the homeowner, but depending on state law, the homeowner likely has no way to intervene, and no reason to do so other than the out of the goodness of their own heart (and at their own expense in trying to find a new tenant).

My father was a real estate broker for many years, and I'm aware of hos this sort of stuff works.

I actually have some experience on this issue. Even the law can't do anything about a possible future threat. They wait 'till something happens, and then deal with it after the fact.

I had a neighbor just south of me with a very large pit bull. I'd hesitate to call it a "pit bull", and did in dealing with the responding LEO, but she assured me it WAS a pit bull. In her words, a very LARGE pit bull.

The first time it got on my property, I called the county animal control officer on duty. Unknown to me (I never saw them respond), they gave the tenant's GF a verbal warning (he later claimed she'd never relayed the message). The 2nd time the dog got on my property, I followed it home in my truck to insure it was their dog), and called the sheriff's dept.

Both times I faced a growling, hackles up, agressive ~130 lb pit bull at arms length. It's amazing to me how big that dog's head looked across the relatively large front sight on a J-frame Smith & Wesson, In hindsight, a J-frame .38 is NOT my weapon of choice for big, agressive dogs; it's what I had on me.

On responding the 2nd time, the officers (there were two this time; only one reportedly responded the first time) cited the ownerr with a "roaming dog on private property" charge, and asked if I was willing to drop the agressive dog charge, since it was a much more serious charge.

On that, I told the officer I was willing to drop the charge if both them, and the owner fully understood the consequences of the dog ever coming back on my property. I explained that if it did, I'd kill it. No questions asked, and no hesitation.

To his credit, the owner thereafter kept the dog on a chain when it was outside, and moved away about a month later.

My mom had a similar situation with a pit bull owned by a next-door neighbor. The guy would come running over when mom started yelling at her husband to bring her gun, and at least once was wearing arm guards and a face mask. Interesting, huh?

Yeah. That one finally ended when she started shooting at the dog when it came on her property. It was invariably after her chickens and livestock, and she was justified. A couple of times shooting at the dog (she missed, unfortunately), and a no-holds-barred explanation of her intent finally got the guy to keep his dog at home.

Six years ago this coming December in Show Low, Arizona, two pit bulls killed a 5 YO girl playing in her front yard. It happened a few days before Christmas. The owner had been cited two weeks earlier when the same two pit's killed someone's dog that was chained in their own yard. It doesn't sound like the gal that owned the dogs learned much in the first go-round, but she went up on 2nd degree murder charges for the 2nd incident.

Agressive dogs of any kind are not something to take lightly. They're a huge responsibility and liability to the owner, and can pose a threat to neighbors when they aren't properly contained. I love dogs, and have a few of my own. Mine aren't people agressive, but I keep them well contained anyway (5' tall kennels, and a 5' exterior fence around the property).

But I'm a responsible dog-owner; not all dog owners are.

Daryl
 
Last edited:
the flipside....

Lived in Kennesaw for a while (famous as the city that passed an ordinance REQUIRING every home to have at least one firearm; also famous as the Atlanta suburb with a persistently low violent crime rate). Had some college aged kids move into a rental house across the street. They kept a large Pit in the backyard, behind a privacy fence.

One day, one of their guests apparently failed to secure the gate when he left. Found the Pit wandering around the street, and was a bit worried that she'd get hit by a car, or scare some non-dog-friendly neighbor.

So, I grabbed my own dog's leash, walked up to the fairly large Pit, held out my left hand for her to sniff (I'm right-handed, so if she changed demeanor and surprised me, at least my primary hand wouldn't be the sacrifice), then petted her and hooked the leash to her collar.

Walked her back home without trouble. Knocked on the door, let the kids know the dog had gotten loose, handed her off to them. They seemed kind of surprised that anybody had been willing to approach their dog, not because she was vicious, but because they were so accustomed to people assuming she would be.

Had a cookout later that day; brought the bones by and gave them to the kids, for the dog. It would have been bad form to give them to Mojo (her name, fit her well) without permission.

My point is, the Pit was roaming not due to owner's negligence, but due to the negligence of a guest; another person finding her might have called in an "aggressive dog" to the PD; another person might have assumed she'd be an immediate threat. I've been around large breed dogs for years, and can generally read them pretty well; she wasn't a threat, just a bit leery of a stranger, for all of a minute.

Some dogs are problems; make sure you know what you are truly dealing with, because most are big babies, even the mean looking ones.
 
Note on giving food to dogs

Another forum member, in another thread, posted about tossing food to a dog to distract it from barking. While that is more humane than a Dog Dazer, or pepper spray, etc, it isn't necessarily a good idea. Not only because some people throw food to dogs with ill intent, but because some dogs may have health issues.

Toss my Jack Russell a piece of chicken, and you'll make her very, very sick. She can't handle poultry, and ends up on pregnazone for a day or two as a result. (Found out the hard way; had no idea how many snacks, treats, and foods have chicken meal or chicken fat as a base)

It's never a good idea to give anything to any dog without first getting the owner's permission. Just as it's always best to ask the owner before approaching a strange dog.

(Current dogs at my place include the Jack; an American Bulldog/ GS / Samoyed / Terrier mix; and a Lab / Pointer mix that looks like a Pit)
 
Common thread...

... to my posts here, as I see it, is this:

Be a good neighbor.

If you have issues with another neighbor, try to resolve them politely and amicably. Consideration of going to the police, or taking other less-than-pleasant measures, should only be a fallback when a civil, neighborly approach has failed.

Sometimes this requires giving the benefit of the doubt; sometimes it requires one to realize that people may do things out of ignorance more than spite.

But if you want a good neighbor, be one.
 
DG45, before this thread gets closed I'm going to comment that NO ONE should do what you have suggested, i.e. try to get someone's HO insurance terminated.

You can get sued for doing this. It's called Interference with Business Relationship. You have no right to interject yourself into someone else's business relationship to attempt to obtain some benefit for yourself by causing harm to them. It could potentially cost you far more than if you were to kill the dog (which I AM NOT saying anyone should do either!)

For the most part, you've got 2 options: 1) work it out with your neighbor; 2) call the police. The only time destroying the animal is even an option is if you are are being attacked on your property.
 
re:Mleake

My point is, the Pit was roaming not due to owner's negligence, but due to the negligence of a guest; another person finding her might have called in an "aggressive dog" to the PD; another person might have assumed she'd be an immediate threat. I've been around large breed dogs for years, and can generally read them pretty well; she wasn't a threat, just a bit leery of a stranger, for all of a minute.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, it is always the owners responsibility. If I leave a loaded gun under my bed and a child takes it outside and shoots someone, it is my negligence, period, end of discussion.
 
I am the owner of a pit dog. I would never own one on purpose, nevertheless I ended up with one. Everything people say about pits is true, on both sides. my dog is a loyal, loving and intelligent dog. At the same time she has an aggressive impulse that defies understanding, to the point of appearing schizophrenic. Owning a pit dog is nothing like owning a loaded gun. A gun doesn't ever go off without some kind of reason, and it never goes out looking for trouble all by it's self. not so with my dog. She can snap without warning and no amount of whipping or pain will stop her. I have used teargas, a 300,000 volt stun gun and a good old beating. There is one way to control her, use a blanket. If a pit dog attacks throw a blanket over it and smother it until it relents. You can always shoot it later if need be. The owner of a pit doesn't own one very long before they figure out that there is something wrong. An owner of one of these dogs MUST be very careful!
 
re: roy reali

On one hand, I tend to agree with you. I'm sure most courts do.

On the other hand, I'll give an example that gets a bit more egregious.

I had an eighteen month Catahoula mix male. He was a basically good dog, but a bit destructive in the house when I was at work all day. I didn't really want to leave him indoors, in a crate, for ten hours at a shot, so I went to the local feed store, bought some chain link sections, and made a 12'x6'x6' enclosure out on the concrete patio in my back yard.

I came home from work one afternoon, and the gate to the enclosure was open, and the dog was gone. I was in a near-panic, not worried that he'd hurt anybody, but very worried because he'd shown no fear of traffic (other than semis and other really big diesels).

I ran around to my front door (hadn't gone into the house yet, first thing was to get the dog) and found a note. My neighbor down the street had thought my dog might be lonely, and her 4 year old daughter had wanted to play with him, so they had come over and taken my dog to their house.

My first reaction was to want to verbally tear the neighbor a new one. She had exposed her daughter to potential danger, and me to potential liability. Not that I was worried about my dog around kids, as I'd child-proofed him, but my neighbor didn't know that.

My second reaction, the one I went with, was to calmly explain to her that she should have coordinated with me first, and that she should not have opened my dog's enclosure without prior permission, let alone removed him from my property. However, since she was now in a position to ask, I was ok with her letting her daughter play with Blue, under supervision only, because I have seen too many kids start playing keep away with a dog, and then panic when it chases them (which is part of the game the kid has initiated).

The neighbor apologized for worrying me, acknowledged her error, and all was well.

Now, if her child had been bitten by my dog on that first day, would it have been my fault? Legally, maybe - the law can be an SOB that way, but morally, do you think that would have been my fault?
 
re: roy reali

Back to the gun and child issue:

Legally, where I live, and where I used to live, if I have a child, or if I allow a child access to my home, and they find an unsecured weapon and cause harm with it, I would be liable.

Legally, where I live, and where I used to live, if I do not have a child, and have not allowed a child access to my home, and some teenaged thief breaks in, steals my unsecured weapon, and causes harm with it, I am not criminally liable. Period. (Civil liability would be another matter, but Georgia makes it pretty hard for criminals to win suits based on their criminal acts; a third party injury would complicate things.)

Morally, I should not be held accountable for the wrong-doings of others, and morally I shouldn't have to lock up my weapons.

As a practical matter, my weapons are in a safe or on my person, because I live in the real world. But that doesn't mean the real world is the way I think it should be.

But your argument holds up, except where it doesn't.
 
Ref Skans comments on getting the neighbors HO terminated. I happen to be a claims rep.

I don't believe that getting the insurance cancelled was the intent of the OP in notifying the insurance company. His intent is to simply to inform them about a potential danger from what he has interpreted as a viscious animal and to hopfully bring pressure on the guy to control the animal. Believe me, the insurance company would want to know.

I believe that if after trying to reasonably work out a solution with the neighbor fails, there is no reason not to notify the neighbor of your thoughts and his insurance company as well. The insurance company will investigate and take action as they feel is appropriate based on the facts.

One thing the OP may not be aware of is the mortgage company will not allow the property to go without insurance. They can't "call the loan". They can only foreclose on the property. If his traditional coverage gets cancelled, he'll need to get insurance elsewhere or a policy will be placed by the lender on the property. Only problem is, the forced placed policy will cover the home only, so it won't have liability coverage like a traditional policy, so you're simply hurting yourself in that regard if there did happen to be an incident.

You would hope the dog owner is a reasonable person like you and me, who doesn't want to lose his traditional insurance coverage for dwelling, contents, liability etc..., then the pressure brought on by his insurance company could force him to take the desired corrective action related to the dog.
 
Believe me, the insurance company would want to know.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure they would! So, if you are a claims rep and John Goodneighbor called you and told you that your insured has a 50 lb "violent" pit-bull, what are you going to do?

1. Nothing?
2. Call your insured and tell them to get rid of the man-eating-dog, or else?
3. Cancel his insurance if he opts for "or else"?

What other options do you have, as the insurance carrier?

Let's assume that "doing nothing" is off the table. Now the homeowner will either: 1) lose a dog that he loves and paid $1,000 for + vet bills of $500 + doggie accessories of another $500. Ouch, he just lost $2,000 because John Goodneighbor used your company as leverage to make him get rid of his dog. Or 2) You cancel his policy; he can't get another policy until he throws the dog out and ooooops, his bank forecloses on his house because he doesn't have a valid HO policy.

So, Mr. Pitbulovitz decides to sue John Goodneighbor because he is being forced to lose his doggie or his house. Now who recommended that Mr. Goodneighbor set himself up for that lawsuit?
 
I just wanted to post this here so people can see it before this post is locked. Acording to the AKC standards a American Pitbull Terrier should never get above 65lbs standing 16-20" at the withers(i believe). Now, if your seeing a pit bull style dog, but is massive in weight and head size, your looking at a different breed.

The breed you see, for the 130lb "pitbull" is what is called a American Bully. It started off as a cross between the AMSTAFF and the APBT. IT was created in the 90's as a alternative to the apbt with out as much dog aggression. Now lately there has been a trend with people breeding different styles of american bullies. The one that you saw that was 130lbs was likely the Extreme style, which can have cane corso, and mastiff and neo mastiff in its blood as well. The american bully now has its own kennel club, the ABKC which has the current set of standards, tho i personaly think that by letting the breeders dictate the standards it is hurting the breed. The pocket ambully is a example of this, it is nothing more then a bad genetic mutation for really short legs.

So ya, if its over 65lbs its not a american pitbull terrier, its likely a American bully, also known as a Mutt on the pitbull forums. Its one thing American pitbull terrier afficiados hate more is having a ambully called a pitbull. LOL.

Edit, to tell the difference, look at the muscle mass on a American bully, and then compare to a Real american pitbull terrier. Sure the Apbt is strong, but its built like a runner or swimmer, lean muscle with endurance. The american bully is built like a body builder, Loads of muscle but with very little endurance.
 
So you want to make a preemptive strike...

... on a dog, based on breed and not actual attacks.

Bravo. While we're at it, let's get rid of those nasty black rifles, and magnum handguns.

No, Roy Reali, the guns won't attack on their own, but they sure look scary? And those magnum bullets go through multiple walls before they stop, sometimes, even if they hit the intended target...

I still find it very hypocritical for gun rights advocates to go after dog owners because they don't find a particular breed suitable; or because they don't like dogs that lunge at the fence.

Guess what? Some of those dog owners may not like guns. Those dogs might be for their HD plan.

I'm a lot more worried about the redneck down the street with a beer gut, two sixpacks, a fifth of Jim Beam, and a wall rack full of rifles than I am about most dogs.
 
I still find it very hypocritical for gun rights advocates to go after dog owners because they don't find a particular breed suitable; or because they don't like dogs that lunge at the fence.
Click to expand...

My gun doesn't bark.
My gun doesn't lunge against a fence seperating my yard from another yard.
My gun doesn't have the desire to tresspass onto someone else's property to poop, pee or do harm.
 
We can assume alot of things. Is Mr. Pitbulovitz a responsbile or irresponsible owner? Has Mr. Goodneighbor talked with him about his concerns and what was Mr. Pitbulovitz's attitude about those concerns? Is the dog an actual threat? Perhaps this thread will get closed since its off track a bit related to guns. But lets go with your line of thought.

1) Nothing. Insurance company does nothing, dog owner does nothing. Dog never gets out and never hurts anyone..... Nothing happens. However, dog now gets out and severly hurts or kills Mr. Goodneighbors kid, the insurance company and homeowner will definately be paying through the nose, along with anything else that can be done. Since the insurance company took no action. perhaps they are open to exposure outside of Mr. Pitbulovitz policy. Mr. Pitbulivitz will be sued for amounts much greater than his liability coverage and will be bankrupt. Possibly sentenced to jail as well with his new cellmate Mr. Jingleballs.

2) Call Mr. Pitbulivitz. Discuss the issue and complaints that have been made concerning his dogs. Insurance company conducts investigation and determines what actions should be done. If complaints are not valid, its just a sweet family pet, nothing happens. Dog appears to be viscious, policy could be cancelled if some sort of agreed action is not taken... get rid of dog, extra measures to contain etc... Premium may be increased for increased liabilty exposure.

3) Mr. Pitbulovitz refuses to contain the dog as agreed by insurance company or get rid of the dog.... if thats what was agreed. Insurance company cancels policy. This would be the same for items found such as unsecured swimming pools, maintenace of dead trees etc... Mr. Pitbulivitz has to try to get another insurance policy. If underwriting of new company sees same dog threat exposure, Mr. Pitbulivitz will again have to take corrective measures. If he refuses, perhaps he can't get another policy or perhaps he gets a policy at a much higher premium. If he can't get a policy, the lender force places a policy which covers the home only. Mr. Pitbulovitz now has no contents, additional living expense, or liabilty coverage. If his House burns down, he loses everything etc... If Mr. Pitbulovitz is also irresponsible with paying his mortgage note, then the property could go into foreclosure after many months of missed payments. Foreclosure has nothing to do with the insurance.

There will be no law suit against Mr. Goodneighbor who was simply relaying information about a threat. Is this the best way to handle it? Well, if all other reasonable options have been attempted with Mr. Pitbulovitz, perhaps its a last resort. All circumstances of what happens are based on the facts found and the actions or lack of action taken by Mr. Pitbulovitz. Its all about being personally responsible for your own actions.

I agree with what has been said about having a great distaste for nosy neighbors and big brotherism, so each circumstance would have its own set of facts to see which side I would actually fall on.
 
I know plenty of rednecks like that and I gotta say the city dude with no gun experience and a newly bought pistol scares me more.
 
hardworker...

... I agree with you, except when somebody says anything bad about #3, in which case all bets are off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top