Brutal murder in Glover Park

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can a chihuahua's petite neck handle a real leash?

are you serious? They make leashes for dogs this small...

Yes, I'm serious. I can't stand the teeny yapper in my neighborhood that barks at everyone who passes its front yard. It's never on a leash so I wondered why.

Yeah, we have one too except it's behind a fence. The stupid thing chases everyone and everything walking past the house yapping and acting crazy. Now if the fence wasn't there, I could see how another dog could grab it for a snack.

In this case, the owner of the chihuahua should have seen it coming. I agree with the other posters. The best she can hope for is an apology from the owner of the other dog and she doesn't even deserve that. It's HER fault her annoying little dog got killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's to say? The fact is that he did not drop his leash. Is he now to be blamed for hypothetical actions? Yes, the guy was callous but the owner has not taken responsibility for his/her negligence.

No, he is not to be blamed for hypotheticals. But "callous" covers someone who dings your car door while you're standing there, and saying nothing and walking away. It's sauntering through a door someone has taken the time to hold open for you and not acknowledging them or saying thank you.

Allowing your pet to kill someone else's pet and walking away without a word is more than "callous." I realize not everyone feels this way, but to many, dogs are family. Just because others do not experience a pet that way doesn't make it any less real for those that do.

And how should the owner have taken responsibility after the fact? Even if she is 100% responsible, there is the social contract to consider. She paid, she lost a family member. The other dog and owner were completely unharmed. Should she have raced after him and apologized? Or should she have just kept quiet, and said "well, that was all my fault. That owner who did nothing to help me or stop the attack? I'm sure that was all he could do. Think about his feelings. Boy he must be in a lot of pain right now. I'll just leave him be and not tell anyone about this. Let me go bury my family member now."

It's called "empathy." This country could use a large dose of it.

[Anonymous]

The DC “leash law” states “No owner of an animal shall allow the animal to go at large.” See DC ST § 8-1808(a). The DC code defines “animal at large” as “any animal neither found off the premises of its owner and neither leashed nor otherwise under the immediate control of a person capable of physically restraining it.” See DC ST § 8-1801(1)(A). The key clause in this definition is “off the premises.” As someone close to this situation, I can definitively say that Freckles, by standing on the brick retaining wall, was in no way “off the premises” when the attack happened, thereby precluding her from being classified as an “animal at large.”

What’s the point here? Members of the public who “throw up their hands” saying “Freckles was off the leash, therefore blame lies with her owner” are drawing superficial conclusions. Going further, as I am familiar with the house and brick retaining wall in question, I can definitively say that, no matter how tall, the aggressor dog could not have snatched Freckles in its mouth without jumping up onto the property where Freckles lawfully stood without a leash. Leash or no leash, Freckles’ owner did nothing wrong.

Regarding the aggressor dog’s owner, he has broken the law, and should be held accountable as such. It is a DC Code violation to fail to report a dog bite within 24 hours. It is a second Code violation to leave the scene of the attack. This is straight from the mouth of a DC Animal Control investigator. Finding this dog and its owner is for the safety of our town. DC Animal Control will take it from there. The District of Columbia, as well as Glover Park, needs to protect its pets, its children, and its residents from a vicious dog that could, God forbid, do this again.

[Anonymous]

“They're on a mission to make a dog human. This is something that's benefiting humans only. We're becoming a very selfish society.”
Cesar Millan quote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THIS!!
I just watched the video from the news. That is not a barrier of any sort. I feel horrible for the owner but with a dog that small running up to and on that brick ledge, it was definitely acting like a squirrel in some ways and opening itself up to danger. I am curious what she wants besides an apology from the other owner...

I have two 40 lb. dogs. One is not friendly when leashed (which is all the time when we are on the street). I have had ALL kinds of dogs come bounding up to us on leash and off leash. Small, medium and HUGE. I change direction, cross the street, tell the owners my dog is not friendly, to please call their dogs, etc., to AVOID the conflict. If I can't avoid the fight, I try to break it up. I stay within the vicinity, make sure everyone is ok, no one is bleeding, etc.

We call this the "social contract." It would be different if the other dog and/or owner also came to some harm but that was not the case here.

What a concept, folks helping each other out instead of looking for who is to "blame" when someone's just lost their best friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The DC “leash law” states “No owner of an animal shall allow the animal to go at large.” See DC ST § 8-1808(a). The DC code defines “animal at large” as “any animal neither found off the premises of its owner and neither leashed nor otherwise under the immediate control of a person capable of physically restraining it.” See DC ST § 8-1801(1)(A). The key clause in this definition is “off the premises.” As someone close to this situation, I can definitively say that Freckles, by standing on the brick retaining wall, was in no way “off the premises” when the attack happened, thereby precluding her from being classified as an “animal at large.”

What’s the point here? Members of the public who “throw up their hands” saying “Freckles was off the leash, therefore blame lies with her owner” are drawing superficial conclusions. Going further, as I am familiar with the house and brick retaining wall in question, I can definitively say that, no matter how tall, the aggressor dog could not have snatched Freckles in its mouth without jumping up onto the property where Freckles lawfully stood without a leash. Leash or no leash, Freckles’ owner did nothing wrong.

Regarding the aggressor dog’s owner, he has broken the law, and should be held accountable as such. It is a DC Code violation to fail to report a dog bite within 24 hours. It is a second Code violation to leave the scene of the attack. This is straight from the mouth of a DC Animal Control investigator. Finding this dog and its owner is for the safety of our town. DC Animal Control will take it from there. The District of Columbia, as well as Glover Park, needs to protect its pets, its children, and its residents from a vicious dog that could, God forbid, do this again.

This is carefully and well written but it is kind of full of shit. It has already been determined where the property line is. All dogs should be on leash, period. If he had been on the leash, he would be alive. Every day he was off leash in the front of that house he was at risk. You cant blame the bigger dog for acting like a dog. You can blame the owner for acting like an ass but I highly doubt he knew he was breaking a law by not calling in the bite or staying. I bet he assumed she would call it in which of course she has. He knows she has since it is already ALL over the news and facebook. Your last three sentences are incredibly dramatic. I think it hurts your cause honestly. You sound too close to the situation to be objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“They're on a mission to make a dog human. This is something that's benefiting humans only. We're becoming a very selfish society.”
Cesar Millan quote

I don't have to make my dog human to experience grief and anger over his death. Grief, by the way, that is just as profound as the loss of a child.

Just because you do not experience a pet this way does not make it untrue for those that do. I personally don't like children. That said, I don't make fun of parents who have lost a child. But hey, what the hell, let me find some forums for parents who've outlived their children, and tell them to get a life, because I don't particularly like children.

I mean, if I think children are useless, maybe telling the parents to get over it is just what they need to hear. I'd be doing them a favor, actually. Teaching them how to feel.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“They're on a mission to make a dog human. This is something that's benefiting humans only. We're becoming a very selfish society.”
Cesar Millan quote

I don't have to make my dog human to experience grief and anger over his death. Grief, by the way, that is just as profound as the loss of a child.

Just because you do not experience a pet this way does not make it untrue for those that do. I personally don't like children. That said, I don't make fun of parents who have lost a child. But hey, what the hell, let me find some forums for parents who've outlived their children, and tell them to get a life, because I don't particularly like children.

I mean, if I think children are useless, maybe telling the parents to get over it is just what they need to hear. I'd be doing them a favor, actually. Teaching them how to feel.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Wow. You dont just need a dog to make you happy. You need a mood stabilizer and it is only 11am.

[Anonymous]

WTF, PP?

SHAME ON YOU for saying grief over the death of a pet is "just as profound as the loss of a child"! Presumably, you don't know anything about this and have no basis for comparison, since you don't even like children and are clearly not a parent. But it's really an insult to those who have experienced life's most bitter loss.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if a mood stabilizer is what she needs, but anyone who can make such statements in earnest is clearly suffering from some kind of pathological condition.

It seems like a benign form of mental illness when so many doggie mommies discuss their pets as children, but for someone to soberly state that losing a pet provokes grief as profound as that of a parent who loses a child, it becomes clear that we're dealing with someone who doesn't accept the value of human life or the nature of a parent's bond with her child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“They're on a mission to make a dog human. This is something that's benefiting humans only. We're becoming a very selfish society.”
Cesar Millan quote

I don't have to make my dog human to experience grief and anger over his death. Grief, by the way, that is just as profound as the loss of a child. Just because you do not experience a pet this way does not make it untrue for those that do. I personally don't like children. That said, I don't make fun of parents who have lost a child. But hey, what the hell, let me find some forums for parents who've outlived their children, and tell them to get a life, because I don't particularly like children.

I mean, if I think children are useless, maybe telling the parents to get over it is just what they need to hear. I'd be doing them a favor, actually. Teaching them how to feel.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

PP, thank you for your salute to Ozzy Osbourne this fine morning.

"All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa! . . . going off the rails on a crazy train."

[Anonymous]

Oh Freckle's Mom -- you stepped in it now.

Hate to tell you but the law doesn't see it your way. Animals are not like children even if you feel that way.

Signed,
has had her dog longer than her children and can't fathom what this crazy chick is talking about

[Anonymous]

1)Hello Freckles Mom --
2) How do we know that Freckles wasn't just shy of biting a child who was walking by?
3) If you are so quick to think the other dog is vicious I think Freckles was acting pretty vicious too.
4) Just happened he picked the fight with the bigger dog and lost.
5) But again, if you had simple control over your own dog in public (which you clearly didn't) then you set your dog up to be killed.

1) I am not the owner of Freckles.
2) Head down to Glover and talk to the witnesses. That question is laughable.
3) Dogs bark, pal. There's nothing "vicious" about it.
4) You clearly have missed the facts. No "fight" was ever "picked."
5) You clearly didn't read my post. "Control" of Freckles was never "lost." Look at the Code.

Lastly, I am blown away by how cruel some of the people in this forum can be. Once allowed to post anonymously, all accountability goes out the window, and out come the wolves (pun intended).

[Anonymous]

I just think its sad. I feel bad for the owner and Freckles. It sounded like the guy did not give two craps about what his dog did and thats the worst part. Even if his dog thought it was a squirrel the fact that he just walked away and did not help is nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if a mood stabilizer is what she needs, but anyone who can make such statements in earnest is clearly suffering from some kind of pathological condition.

Shame on you.