Crime Pit Bull Mauls Woman’s Toe – Police Request CCTV Despite Missing Digit

[Georgealbert]

 

 

Picture courtesy of Workpoint.

 

A 56-year-old woman who lost a toe after being mauled by a pit bull in the early hours of July 14 has expressed frustration after police requested CCTV footage to support her case, despite her injuries.

 

The victim, identified only as Mrs. Saradom, spoke to local reporters from her home in Pae subdistrict, Mueang District, Rayong Province. She recounted the traumatic incident that left her middle toe on her right foot severed.

 

The attack occurred around 03:00 while she was out sweeping the streets as part of her cleaning job. Four pit bulls approached her and one of them lunged, biting her foot and severing a toe. After receiving three days of hospital treatment, she returned home and proceeded to file a police report, hoping to receive compensation from the dog’s owner.

 

Mrs. Saradom brought photographs of her injuries as evidence, including the missing toe. However, officers at the local police station reportedly told her that the evidence was insufficient without CCTV footage of the incident.

 

“Isn’t a missing toe enough proof?” she asked reporters. “I’ve already lost part of my body forever. I just want the owner of the dog to take some responsibility.”

 

The story gained public attention and sparked debate about police procedures in cases involving animal attacks. Critics questioned the necessity of surveillance footage when physical injuries were so clearly documented.

 

Following the media coverage, the dog’s owner came forward and initiated talks with Mrs. Saradom to provide compensation. Both parties are currently in discussions to resolve the matter amicably.

 

The case highlights the growing issue of dangerous dog ownership and the need for clearer legal protocols regarding victim compensation and liability.

 

 

  Adapted by Asean Now from Workpoint 2025-07-21

 

 

 

[fredwiggy]

I would hope, seeing the owner is admitting his dog's guilt, that the animal would be permanently confined or put down, as this will happen again, and the next time it might be fatal. Compensation is one thing, but common sense is another. The dog only knows one thing, and obviously it came from a lack of training.

[save the frogs]

4 pitbulls ... she's lucky to be alive. 

darn pitbulls at it again. 

 

[MarkBR]

19 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

 

 

Picture courtesy of Workpoint.

 

A 56-year-old woman who lost a toe after being mauled by a pit bull in the early hours of July 14 has expressed frustration after police requested CCTV footage to support her case, despite her injuries.

 

The victim, identified only as Mrs. Saradom, spoke to local reporters from her home in Pae subdistrict, Mueang District, Rayong Province. She recounted the traumatic incident that left her middle toe on her right foot severed.

 

The attack occurred around 03:00 while she was out sweeping the streets as part of her cleaning job. Four pit bulls approached her and one of them lunged, biting her foot and severing a toe. After receiving three days of hospital treatment, she returned home and proceeded to file a police report, hoping to receive compensation from the dog’s owner.

 

Mrs. Saradom brought photographs of her injuries as evidence, including the missing toe. However, officers at the local police station reportedly told her that the evidence was insufficient without CCTV footage of the incident.

 

“Isn’t a missing toe enough proof?” she asked reporters. “I’ve already lost part of my body forever. I just want the owner of the dog to take some responsibility.”

 

The story gained public attention and sparked debate about police procedures in cases involving animal attacks. Critics questioned the necessity of surveillance footage when physical injuries were so clearly documented.

 

Following the media coverage, the dog’s owner came forward and initiated talks with Mrs. Saradom to provide compensation. Both parties are currently in discussions to resolve the matter amicably.

 

The case highlights the growing issue of dangerous dog ownership and the need for clearer legal protocols regarding victim compensation and liability.

 

 

  Adapted by Asean Now from Workpoint 2025-07-21

 

 

 

The dog must be put down, it represents a danger to humans, young & old.   People should not be allowed to breed dogs with violent behavioural problems.

[fredwiggy]

2 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

The dog must be put down, it represents a danger to humans, young & old.   People should not be allowed to breed dogs with violent behavioural problems.

My daughter loves animals, and we have an assortment of dogs that have been coming to our house for 7 years. I have told her many times not to trust just any dog, as most here are running loose, and you don't know how they were treated or trained, if at all. 

 

In America, I would go up to any animals I see, looking to make a friend, petting them. In 62 years, I was  bitten once, by a small dog in a yard where I was looking at a motorcycle possibly to buy. Two dogs ran after me when I crossed a rope about a foot high. One grabbed my pants and ripped it, giving me a small bite. The owner was mad at the dog but it wasn't a big deal, so I told him it's okay.

 

The only other time I was bit was here, going to a wedding with my girlfriend here. We were leaving and a dog was by my car so I bent to pet it and it bit me on the hand, not breaking the skin. It was the person's dog in the house next to my car. They said nothing, even though it was loose in the street. The thing here, is that again, most of the dogs you see here are either wild or let free by their owners, with little or no training, and they revert to being dogs. Territorial and sometimes vicious. That they see us as just another dog has them exert their authority.

 

That lady was in that dogs realm, and that dog will continue this unless it's dealt with properly. 

[hotchilli]

On 7/21/2025 at 6:57 AM, save the frogs said:

4 pitbulls ... she's lucky to be alive. 

darn pitbulls at it again. 

 

Darn owners allowing their dogs to roam free.

[Jing Joe]

On 7/21/2025 at 9:57 AM, fredwiggy said:

....... The dog only knows one thing, and obviously it came from a lack of training.

 

Yet another attack !!!  Lack of training !!!   RUBBISH!!!!!!    It's inherrent in the breed and they all need medicine:- a lead pill.

[khunpeer]

On 7/21/2025 at 6:46 AM, Georgealbert said:

 

 

Picture courtesy of Workpoint.

 

A 56-year-old woman who lost a toe after being mauled by a pit bull in the early hours of July 14 has expressed frustration after police requested CCTV footage to support her case, despite her injuries.

 

The victim, identified only as Mrs. Saradom, spoke to local reporters from her home in Pae subdistrict, Mueang District, Rayong Province. She recounted the traumatic incident that left her middle toe on her right foot severed.

 

The attack occurred around 03:00 while she was out sweeping the streets as part of her cleaning job. Four pit bulls approached her and one of them lunged, biting her foot and severing a toe. After receiving three days of hospital treatment, she returned home and proceeded to file a police report, hoping to receive compensation from the dog’s owner.

 

Mrs. Saradom brought photographs of her injuries as evidence, including the missing toe. However, officers at the local police station reportedly told her that the evidence was insufficient without CCTV footage of the incident.

 

“Isn’t a missing toe enough proof?” she asked reporters. “I’ve already lost part of my body forever. I just want the owner of the dog to take some responsibility.”

 

The story gained public attention and sparked debate about police procedures in cases involving animal attacks. Critics questioned the necessity of surveillance footage when physical injuries were so clearly documented.

 

Following the media coverage, the dog’s owner came forward and initiated talks with Mrs. Saradom to provide compensation. Both parties are currently in discussions to resolve the matter amicably.

 

The case highlights the growing issue of dangerous dog ownership and the need for clearer legal protocols regarding victim compensation and liability.

 

 

  Adapted by Asean Now from Workpoint 2025-07-21

 

 

 

being a dangerous dog owner brings also responsibility, and thát is something they don't like...

[OldmanJ]

Pit bulls at it again, I sincerely hope someone will say this breed is dangerous.Those people who believe otherwise should be placed in a area with multiple pit bulls so the dogs can have there way with them and dismember them.

[proton]

On 7/21/2025 at 6:57 AM, fredwiggy said:

I would hope, seeing the owner is admitting his dog's guilt, that the animal would be permanently confined or put down, as this will happen again, and the next time it might be fatal. Compensation is one thing, but common sense is another. The dog only knows one thing, and obviously it came from a lack of training.

 

A variation on no bad dogs only bad owners nonsense. These dogs were bred for violence, it cannot be trained out of them, they are a no more fit to be around people than a crocodile.

[thailand49]

Got to remember these police are lazy, nothing in it for them do nothing then you got police who are clueless with a badge without CCTV, they aren't going to figure out 2+2 🤣

[ujayujay]

If you kick a dog, you risk having its toes bitten off!

[ujayujay]

3 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Darn owners allowing their dogs to roam free.

Nonsense. My well-trained dog can go out into the Village without any problems. The only problem is cowards waving a stick in his face, which is when he might bite.

[proton]

19 minutes ago, ujayujay said:

Nonsense. My well-trained dog can go out into the Village without any problems. The only problem is cowards waving a stick in his face, which is when he might bite.

 

So you are an irresponsible dog owner then letting your stinking yapping mutt roam about off lead. He would not get a chance to bite me, he would have the stick on his head at the first sign of aggression

[proton]

On 7/21/2025 at 7:21 AM, fredwiggy said:

My daughter loves animals, and we have an assortment of dogs that have been coming to our house for 7 years. I have told her many times not to trust just any dog, as most here are running loose, and you don't know how they were treated or trained, if at all. 

 

In America, I would go up to any animals I see, looking to make a friend, petting them. In 62 years, I was  bitten once, by a small dog in a yard where I was looking at a motorcycle possibly to buy. Two dogs ran after me when I crossed a rope about a foot high. One grabbed my pants and ripped it, giving me a small bite. The owner was mad at the dog but it wasn't a big deal, so I told him it's okay.

 

The only other time I was bit was here, going to a wedding with my girlfriend here. We were leaving and a dog was by my car so I bent to pet it and it bit me on the hand, not breaking the skin. It was the person's dog in the house next to my car. They said nothing, even though it was loose in the street. The thing here, is that again, most of the dogs you see here are either wild or let free by their owners, with little or no training, and they revert to being dogs. Territorial and sometimes vicious. That they see us as just another dog has them exert their authority.

 

That lady was in that dogs realm, and that dog will continue this unless it's dealt with properly. 

 

 

Dogs are sly, crafty carnivores and love attacking anything they think they can get away with, especially babies and small kids

[thesetat]

On 7/21/2025 at 6:57 AM, fredwiggy said:

I would hope, seeing the owner is admitting his dog's guilt, that the animal would be permanently confined or put down, as this will happen again, and the next time it might be fatal. Compensation is one thing, but common sense is another. The dog only knows one thing, and obviously it came from a lack of training.

Do you really think she cares if the dog attacks anyone else? All she cares about is getting paid... Money is her interest. 

[ujayujay]

3 minutes ago, proton said:

 

So you are an irresponsible dog owner then letting your stinking yapping mutt roam about off lead. He would not get a chance to bite me, he would have the stick on his head at the first sign of aggression

...and before you even swung the stick, he bit you! You're way too slow, Grumpy

[ujayujay]

8 minutes ago, proton said:

 

 

Dogs are sly, crafty carnivores and love attacking anything they think they can get away with, especially babies and small kids

.....in Thailand, there eat Dogs the Babies 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, thailand49 said:

Got to remember these police are lazy, nothing in it for them do nothing then you got police who are clueless with a badge without CCTV, they aren't going to figure out 2+2 🤣

Regardless of the fact that the owner has now allegedly agreed to compensation and before that confirmation, three days after the unwitnessed event how does just a missing toe confirm that it's loss was the result of a specific dog's attack three days earlier and what makes the police so "clueless"?     

[Liverpool Lou]

23 minutes ago, thesetat said:

Do you really think she cares if the dog attacks anyone else? All she cares about is getting paid... Money is her interest. 

You know her, then?

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, ujayujay said:

.....in Thailand, there eat Dogs the Babies 

Unintelligible nonsense.

[thesetat]

49 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You know her, then?

Read the OP! It is all she wants. 

[proton]

2 hours ago, ujayujay said:

...and before you even swung the stick, he bit you! You're way too slow, Grumpy

 

Ah as expected, not well trained at all then, unless to attack innocent walkers- with those and expandable metal batons!

[Thingamabob]

2 hours ago, proton said:

 

 

Dogs are sly, crafty carnivores and love attacking anything they think they can get away with, especially babies and small kids

OK. We got the message. You hate dogs and, by your choice of language, you most likely hate all animals. What a sad case you are.

[thailand49]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Regardless of the fact that the owner has now allegedly agreed to compensation and before that confirmation, three days after the unwitnessed event how does just a missing toe confirm that it's loss was the result of a specific dog's attack three days earlier and what makes the police so "clueless"?     

Look LL, it's your ORIGIN can't hold your hand like the BIB, give you the answers all the time that is like the problem with the BIB and request for CCTV before they can act. Doing so you like them continue to sit on their behind.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

Look LL, it's your ORIGIN can't hold your hand like the BIB, give you the answers all the time that is like the problem with the BIB and request for CCTV before they can act. Doing so you like them continue to sit on their behind.

If that made any intelligible sense, I'd comment on it, I'm sure.

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, ujayujay said:

Nonsense. My well-trained dog can go out into the Village without any problems. The only problem is cowards waving a stick in his face, which is when he might bite.

 

No dog should ever be allowed to roam freely - none.

 

The safety of the public must come before any misguided sense of freedom for domestic animals. Dogs, regardless of breed, should always be securely contained and under control. Far too often, we hear the same tired phrase after an attack: "He’s never done that before." But once is already too late when someone is mauled, traumatised, or killed.

 

IF dog owners were more strictly and consistently held accountable for the actions of their animals, would we see fewer attacks? Almost certainly. If the consequences were immediate, severe, and unavoidable, owners would be far more likely to ensure their pets were kept in secure, escape-proof environments, with no opportunity to harm others.

 

Any unprovoked attack by a dog on a human should carry an automatic and significant penalty for the owner - fines, criminal charges, and, where appropriate, bans on future ownership. Anything less is, in effect, enabling negligence. A toothless system sends a message that irresponsible ownership is tolerable, and that victims - often children - are just collateral damage.

 

Moreover, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: some breeds simply should not exist in domestic settings. These dogs were bred specifically for aggression, for fighting, for dominance - traits that remain even if someone claims to have "trained it out." The very fact that extensive training is required to suppress aggressive tendencies in certain breeds is itself proof that these animals are not appropriate as pets.

 

No one has an inalienable right to own a dog bred for violence. The wellbeing and safety of the wider community must take precedence over an individual's emotional attachment to a particular breed - especially when that breed is statistically overrepresented in severe attacks. The desire to own a "pittie," or any similar so-called 'dangerous breed', should never override public safety.

 

Banning such breeds is not about punishing dogs. It’s about taking proactive, rational steps to prevent avoidable tragedies.

 

We do not allow private citizens to own wild animals, for obvious reasons. It’s time Thailand treated breeds with violent potential with the same caution and legal scrutiny.

 

A safe society is one where responsibility is non-negotiable, and where danger is not allowed to masquerade as a pet.

[proton]

45 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

OK. We got the message. You hate dogs and, by your choice of language, you most likely hate all animals. What a sad case you are.

 

I have not eaten any animals for 53 years, how about you?

[In Full Agreement]

Bob and Bob,    You are too much.

[fredwiggy]

4 hours ago, thesetat said:

Do you really think she cares if the dog attacks anyone else? All she cares about is getting paid... Money is her interest. 

The lack of care for everything here is astounding.