Phuket Pit Bull Owner Sued After Savage Dog Attack

[lemoncake]

Did you bother to read post 12 by Webfact? I am guessing not:

Posted 2013-02-26 21:24:40

Vicious Pit Bull Attack: Phuket mother files for compensation

Phuket Gazette -

PHUKET: A compensation complaint for a hospital bill totalling nearly 700,000 baht was filed with Wichit Police yesterday after a man was savaged in a vicious pit bull attack.

Benjarat Ekpaiboon’s 33-year-old son, Tiensak Ekpaiboon, was attacked by three of their neighbor’s five pit bulls around 8am on February 6.

“He’s been in hospital for almost three weeks now. Some of the wounds, like the ones to his face, chest and arm are better, but the deep wounds to his legs still need treatment, Mrs Benjarat told the Phuket Gazette today.

Mr Tiensak was still deciding whether he would prefer a skin graft to repair his leg wounds or if he would just leave them to heal naturally, Mrs Benjarat explained.

Her son was attacked by the pit bulls moments after they attempted to attack a woman in the area, Ms Benjarat said.

“Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse,” Mrs Benjarat said. “She filed a complaint with the Wichit Police, too.”

Mr Tiensak was taken to Bangkok Hospital Phuket for treatment after several neighbors were able to chase off the dogs.

“We tried to negotiate with the neighbor at the police station after the incident,” Mrs Benjarat said at the time of filing the complaint.

“The dogs’ owner asked us to transfer Tiensak to the Phuket Provincial Administration Organization Hospital [in Rassada], but I declined. Our hospital bill is now about 700,000 baht, but the owner has paid only 300,000 baht and has refused to cover the rest of the bill,” she said.

Mrs Benjarat explained to the Gazette that the owner of the five pit bulls had been raising the animals for about five years. Two of the dogs were kept inside and three were kept in a concrete area specially made for them outside, she said.

“I was also attacked by the dogs once, but it was not very serious, so I did not file a complaint,” she added.

Source: http://www.phuketgaz...tion-20342.html

-- Phuket Gazette 2013-02-26

Yes thank you, now read the latest update.

First it says moments after they attacked some woman, now mother claims son went to help the woman. So would not they be attacked at the same time?

Mother stated "Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse"

She did not state son helped the woman.

I am sorry but the whole story by the mother does not add up in a number of way.

As i said, the money amount, what actually took place and i still can not understand how dogs were outside if they were in a concrete area made for them.

Did they jump over break through concrete walls? how did they get outside? and what caused them to attack?

[Jimi007]

Yes thank you, now read the latest update.

First it says moments after they attacked some woman, now mother claims son went to help the woman. So would not they be attacked at the same time?

Mother stated "Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse"

She did not state son helped the woman.

I am sorry but the whole story by the mother does not add up in a number of way.

As i said, the money amount, what actually took place and i still can not understand how dogs were outside if they were in a concrete area made for them.

Did they jump over break through concrete walls? how did they get outside? and what caused them to attack?

You weren't an eye witness, neither was I. But I can read and most news accounts say about the same thing. The dogs were out, first went after a woman and then this man. Read yet another account:

Mr Tiarasak was walking in front of his house on February 6 when he was attacked. The three dogs, belonging to a neighbour, had got loose and had just been chased away by people nearby after they tried to bit a woman.

Running back home, they encountered Mr Tiarasak and set upon him instead.

“The three dogs attacked him as soon as they saw him. He was unable to fight back and could only yell for some help. He was bitten repeatedly before some villagers came and chased the dogs away from him,” said Pol Maj Sanit Nookong of Wichit police.

Although the attack took place 20 days ago, Mr Tiarasak’s mother Benjarat did not report it initially to the police because she believed the dogs’ owner would pay for her son’s medical treatment. When he refused to do so, she went to the police.

“[My son] has already spent 20 days in Bangkok Hospital Phuket and may be released in the next two or three days as his wounds on arms and chest are getting better now,” Mrs Benjarat told The Phuket News.

However, she said that doctors were concerned about large wounds on both his legs. If these healed, they had said, he would be discharged, but if not, then he would need skin grafts.

“Both of his legs have big wounds. He lost quite a lot of skin so we have to see whether the skin will grow back or not,” she explained.

“So far treatment has cost B700,000 and there will be more bills, but the dogs’ owner has refused to pay anything.”

When Mrs Benjarat went to Wichit Police Station yesterday (February 25) she took with her pictures of her son’s injuries and the hospital bills.

“She reported the dogs’ owner for ‘having in his care a ferocious or vicious animal, allowing it to wander about alone in a manner likely to cause injury to a person’,” Maj Sanit said.

"Up to now she and the owner have been unable to come to an agreement on compensation."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-man-gravely-savaged-in-pit-bull-attack-37350.php#sthash.VpBNoXBr.dpuf

[lemoncake]

Yes thank you, now read the latest update.

First it says moments after they attacked some woman, now mother claims son went to help the woman. So would not they be attacked at the same time?

Mother stated "Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse"

She did not state son helped the woman.

I am sorry but the whole story by the mother does not add up in a number of way.

As i said, the money amount, what actually took place and i still can not understand how dogs were outside if they were in a concrete area made for them.

Did they jump over break through concrete walls? how did they get outside? and what caused them to attack?

You weren't an eye witness, neither was I. But I can read and most news accounts say about the same thing. The dogs were out, first went after a woman and then this man. Read yet another account:

Mr Tiarasak was walking in front of his house on February 6 when he was attacked. The three dogs, belonging to a neighbour, had got loose and had just been chased away by people nearby after they tried to bit a woman.

Running back home, they encountered Mr Tiarasak and set upon him instead.

“The three dogs attacked him as soon as they saw him. He was unable to fight back and could only yell for some help. He was bitten repeatedly before some villagers came and chased the dogs away from him,” said Pol Maj Sanit Nookong of Wichit police.

Although the attack took place 20 days ago, Mr Tiarasak’s mother Benjarat did not report it initially to the police because she believed the dogs’ owner would pay for her son’s medical treatment. When he refused to do so, she went to the police.

“[My son] has already spent 20 days in Bangkok Hospital Phuket and may be released in the next two or three days as his wounds on arms and chest are getting better now,” Mrs Benjarat told The Phuket News.

However, she said that doctors were concerned about large wounds on both his legs. If these healed, they had said, he would be discharged, but if not, then he would need skin grafts.

“Both of his legs have big wounds. He lost quite a lot of skin so we have to see whether the skin will grow back or not,” she explained.

“So far treatment has cost B700,000 and there will be more bills, but the dogs’ owner has refused to pay anything.”

When Mrs Benjarat went to Wichit Police Station yesterday (February 25) she took with her pictures of her son’s injuries and the hospital bills.

“She reported the dogs’ owner for ‘having in his care a ferocious or vicious animal, allowing it to wander about alone in a manner likely to cause injury to a person’,” Maj Sanit said.

"Up to now she and the owner have been unable to come to an agreement on compensation."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-man-gravely-savaged-in-pit-bull-attack-37350.php#sthash.VpBNoXBr.dpuf

But see again a contradiction. Here it says he was walking in front of his house when he was attacked.

Previous statement was, he went to help woman who was being attacked outside dogs house.

In previous statement mother stated the owner paid 300 000 baht, but in this one she says owner refused to pay anything.

It may well be "reporting" but it also may well be not the whole hearted truth of what took place

[Shot]

Yes thank you, now read the latest update.

First it says moments after they attacked some woman, now mother claims son went to help the woman. So would not they be attacked at the same time?

Mother stated "Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse"

She did not state son helped the woman.

I am sorry but the whole story by the mother does not add up in a number of way.

As i said, the money amount, what actually took place and i still can not understand how dogs were outside if they were in a concrete area made for them.

Did they jump over break through concrete walls? how did they get outside? and what caused them to attack?

You weren't an eye witness, neither was I. But I can read and most news accounts say about the same thing. The dogs were out, first went after a woman and then this man. Read yet another account:

Mr Tiarasak was walking in front of his house on February 6 when he was attacked. The three dogs, belonging to a neighbour, had got loose and had just been chased away by people nearby after they tried to bit a woman.

Running back home, they encountered Mr Tiarasak and set upon him instead.

“The three dogs attacked him as soon as they saw him. He was unable to fight back and could only yell for some help. He was bitten repeatedly before some villagers came and chased the dogs away from him,” said Pol Maj Sanit Nookong of Wichit police.

Although the attack took place 20 days ago, Mr Tiarasak’s mother Benjarat did not report it initially to the police because she believed the dogs’ owner would pay for her son’s medical treatment. When he refused to do so, she went to the police.

“[My son] has already spent 20 days in Bangkok Hospital Phuket and may be released in the next two or three days as his wounds on arms and chest are getting better now,” Mrs Benjarat told The Phuket News.

However, she said that doctors were concerned about large wounds on both his legs. If these healed, they had said, he would be discharged, but if not, then he would need skin grafts.

“Both of his legs have big wounds. He lost quite a lot of skin so we have to see whether the skin will grow back or not,” she explained.

“So far treatment has cost B700,000 and there will be more bills, but the dogs’ owner has refused to pay anything.”

When Mrs Benjarat went to Wichit Police Station yesterday (February 25) she took with her pictures of her son’s injuries and the hospital bills.

“She reported the dogs’ owner for ‘having in his care a ferocious or vicious animal, allowing it to wander about alone in a manner likely to cause injury to a person’,” Maj Sanit said.

"Up to now she and the owner have been unable to come to an agreement on compensation."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-man-gravely-savaged-in-pit-bull-attack-37350.php#sthash.VpBNoXBr.dpuf

But see again a contradiction. Here it says he was walking in front of his house when he was attacked.

Previous statement was, he went to help woman who was being attacked outside dogs house.

In previous statement mother stated the owner paid 300 000 baht, but in this one she says owner refused to pay anything.

It may well be "reporting" but it also may well be not the whole hearted truth of what took place

Either way, they were outside the property.

Kill the dogs now.

Pay the 800.000

Two years in jail for the owners.

[lemoncake]

Yes thank you, now read the latest update.

First it says moments after they attacked some woman, now mother claims son went to help the woman. So would not they be attacked at the same time?

Mother stated "Fortunately, the woman was able to use her purse and umbrella to fend them off. Though she did lose her purse"

She did not state son helped the woman.

I am sorry but the whole story by the mother does not add up in a number of way.

As i said, the money amount, what actually took place and i still can not understand how dogs were outside if they were in a concrete area made for them.

Did they jump over break through concrete walls? how did they get outside? and what caused them to attack?

You weren't an eye witness, neither was I. But I can read and most news accounts say about the same thing. The dogs were out, first went after a woman and then this man. Read yet another account:

Mr Tiarasak was walking in front of his house on February 6 when he was attacked. The three dogs, belonging to a neighbour, had got loose and had just been chased away by people nearby after they tried to bit a woman.

Running back home, they encountered Mr Tiarasak and set upon him instead.

“The three dogs attacked him as soon as they saw him. He was unable to fight back and could only yell for some help. He was bitten repeatedly before some villagers came and chased the dogs away from him,” said Pol Maj Sanit Nookong of Wichit police.

Although the attack took place 20 days ago, Mr Tiarasak’s mother Benjarat did not report it initially to the police because she believed the dogs’ owner would pay for her son’s medical treatment. When he refused to do so, she went to the police.

“[My son] has already spent 20 days in Bangkok Hospital Phuket and may be released in the next two or three days as his wounds on arms and chest are getting better now,” Mrs Benjarat told The Phuket News.

However, she said that doctors were concerned about large wounds on both his legs. If these healed, they had said, he would be discharged, but if not, then he would need skin grafts.

“Both of his legs have big wounds. He lost quite a lot of skin so we have to see whether the skin will grow back or not,” she explained.

“So far treatment has cost B700,000 and there will be more bills, but the dogs’ owner has refused to pay anything.”

When Mrs Benjarat went to Wichit Police Station yesterday (February 25) she took with her pictures of her son’s injuries and the hospital bills.

“She reported the dogs’ owner for ‘having in his care a ferocious or vicious animal, allowing it to wander about alone in a manner likely to cause injury to a person’,” Maj Sanit said.

"Up to now she and the owner have been unable to come to an agreement on compensation."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-man-gravely-savaged-in-pit-bull-attack-37350.php#sthash.VpBNoXBr.dpuf

But see again a contradiction. Here it says he was walking in front of his house when he was attacked.

Previous statement was, he went to help woman who was being attacked outside dogs house.

In previous statement mother stated the owner paid 300 000 baht, but in this one she says owner refused to pay anything.

It may well be "reporting" but it also may well be not the whole hearted truth of what took place

Either way, they were outside the property.

Kill the dogs now.

Pay the 800.000

Two years in jail for the owners.

Good to see you pay attention to what you read

According to the quoted print, "Running back home"

In initial print " dogs rushed out from the house "

Hmmmm, i wonder what the actual chain of events was

[Jimi007]

You weren't an eye witness, neither was I. But I can read and most news accounts say about the same thing. The dogs were out, first went after a woman and then this man. Read yet another account:

Mr Tiarasak was walking in front of his house on February 6 when he was attacked. The three dogs, belonging to a neighbour, had got loose and had just been chased away by people nearby after they tried to bit a woman.

Running back home, they encountered Mr Tiarasak and set upon him instead.

“The three dogs attacked him as soon as they saw him. He was unable to fight back and could only yell for some help. He was bitten repeatedly before some villagers came and chased the dogs away from him,” said Pol Maj Sanit Nookong of Wichit police.

Although the attack took place 20 days ago, Mr Tiarasak’s mother Benjarat did not report it initially to the police because she believed the dogs’ owner would pay for her son’s medical treatment. When he refused to do so, she went to the police.

“[My son] has already spent 20 days in Bangkok Hospital Phuket and may be released in the next two or three days as his wounds on arms and chest are getting better now,” Mrs Benjarat told The Phuket News.

However, she said that doctors were concerned about large wounds on both his legs. If these healed, they had said, he would be discharged, but if not, then he would need skin grafts.

“Both of his legs have big wounds. He lost quite a lot of skin so we have to see whether the skin will grow back or not,” she explained.

“So far treatment has cost B700,000 and there will be more bills, but the dogs’ owner has refused to pay anything.”

When Mrs Benjarat went to Wichit Police Station yesterday (February 25) she took with her pictures of her son’s injuries and the hospital bills.

“She reported the dogs’ owner for ‘having in his care a ferocious or vicious animal, allowing it to wander about alone in a manner likely to cause injury to a person’,” Maj Sanit said.

"Up to now she and the owner have been unable to come to an agreement on compensation."

- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-man-gravely-savaged-in-pit-bull-attack-37350.php#sthash.VpBNoXBr.dpuf[/size]

But see again a contradiction. Here it says he was walking in front of his house when he was attacked.

Previous statement was, he went to help woman who was being attacked outside dogs house.

In previous statement mother stated the owner paid 300 000 baht, but in this one she says owner refused to pay anything.

It may well be "reporting" but it also may well be not the whole hearted truth of what took place

Either way, they were outside the property.

Kill the dogs now.

Pay the 800.000

Two years in jail for the owners.

Good to see you pay attention to what you read:thumbsup:

According to the quoted print, "Running back home"[/size]

In initial print " dogs rushed out from the house "

Hmmmm, i wonder what the actual chain of events was

You are really beating a dead horse! LOL! I have a dog, too. But she's not allowed to just run around anymore. It's too crowded around here now. The news transliterations are not the best around here if you read the news very often. By every news report the dogs were out. Do you have any credible news source you can quote to back up anything you are trying to say?

[lemoncake]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

I also would want to know why there are too many contradictions in the same story by the same people?

Dogs were running back home, dogs ran out from the house, son was outside his own house, son was outside dogs house, son went to help another woman. owner paid money, owner did not pay money. dogs were out, dogs were in their concrete walls.

As Judge Judy says- "its hard to remember the story when you lying"

The only fact is that he was attacked, but when, why, how and everything else is unclear.

If mothers account of events was/is true, why keep changing the statements?!

Edited March 2, 2013 by lemoncake

[Shot]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

Were these your dogs?

[lemoncake]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

Were these your dogs?

1. do not modify my posts

2. learn to read, the owner is Thai

3. it is irrelevant if my dogs or someone else's. If you want to pass judgement, first get the facts right, otherwise its simply foolish

It is no different to determining who is at fault of a fatal car crash, the crash did take place, there is a victim but who is to blame needs to be clarified

[SeaVisionBurma]

From what I am reading - the difference in the detail seems to come from variations in the reporting by the media, and then subsequent translation from Thai into English - not some conspiracy about the legal details of the case.

In any event - this thread is close to becoming a nit-picking, bickering match - so lets all agree to disagree, else I'll deem it to have run its course and close it.

Okay?

[iSabai]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

I also would want to know why there are too many contradictions in the same story by the same people?

Dogs were running back home, dogs ran out from the house, son was outside his own house, son was outside dogs house, son went to help another woman. owner paid money, owner did not pay money. dogs were out, dogs were in their concrete walls.

As Judge Judy says- "its hard to remember the story when you lying"

The only fact is that he was attacked, but when, why, how and everything else is unclear.

If mothers account of events was/is true, why keep changing the statements?!

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......

Edited March 2, 2013 by iSabai

[lemoncake]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

I also would want to know why there are too many contradictions in the same story by the same people?

Dogs were running back home, dogs ran out from the house, son was outside his own house, son was outside dogs house, son went to help another woman. owner paid money, owner did not pay money. dogs were out, dogs were in their concrete walls.

As Judge Judy says- "its hard to remember the story when you lying"

The only fact is that he was attacked, but when, why, how and everything else is unclear.

If mothers account of events was/is true, why keep changing the statements?!

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......

Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

[Jimi007]

From what I am reading - the difference in the detail seems to come from variations in the reporting by the media, and then subsequent translation from Thai into English - not some conspiracy about the legal details of the case.

In any event - this thread is close to becoming a nit-picking, bickering match - so lets all agree to disagree, else I'll deem it to have run its course and close it.

Okay?

I have to agree with you. I didn't even bother replying to this thread for a long time, but after reading pages worth of pure speculation by one member, I thought I would point him to more information. There are four different English language local news sources that have all said about the same thing, plus the initial report from the Pattaya News... It's in the courts hands now. Hopefully all these news sources will follow up with what happens with this story.

[metisdead]

Some more round and round bickering posts and replies have been removed.

[phuketjock]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

I also would want to know why there are too many contradictions in the same story by the same people?

Dogs were running back home, dogs ran out from the house, son was outside his own house, son was outside dogs house, son went to help another woman. owner paid money, owner did not pay money. dogs were out, dogs were in their concrete walls.

As Judge Judy says- "its hard to remember the story when you lying"

The only fact is that he was attacked, but when, why, how and everything else is unclear.

If mothers account of events was/is true, why keep changing the statements?!

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......

Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

Not really nonsense LC

Source.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

• 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

iSabai makes a fair point don't you think ??????

[lemoncake]

You missing the point.

The point is the mother is telling different stories, the police making statements with another version. So before passing the judgement i like to know what actually happened.

I also would want to know why there are too many contradictions in the same story by the same people?

Dogs were running back home, dogs ran out from the house, son was outside his own house, son was outside dogs house, son went to help another woman. owner paid money, owner did not pay money. dogs were out, dogs were in their concrete walls.

As Judge Judy says- "its hard to remember the story when you lying"

The only fact is that he was attacked, but when, why, how and everything else is unclear.

If mothers account of events was/is true, why keep changing the statements?!

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......

Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

Not really nonsense LC

Source.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

• 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

iSabai makes a fair point don't you think ??????

Absolutely, now lets look at how many people have died at the hands of other people

[Rimmer]

Off topic and stupid post removed

[phuketjock]

Not really nonsense LC

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

Source.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

• 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

iSabai makes a fair point don't you think ??????

Absolutely, now lets look at how many people have died at the hands of other people

Way Way off topic LC, the thread is about pit bulls attacking people, not people attacking

people.

[lemoncake]

Not really nonsense LC

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

Source.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

• 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

iSabai makes a fair point don't you think ??????

Absolutely, now lets look at how many people have died at the hands of other people

Way Way off topic LC, the thread is about pit bulls attacking people, not people attacking

people.

Not at all, if you want to make case that dogs are a menace to society and bring up stats of people deaths caused by the dogs, you should also consider lethal snake bites, lethal bee bites, lethal mosquito bites and most of all human attacks on humans.

Then in comparison you will see who is more menace to society

[phuketjock]

Not really nonsense LC

You seem to be the only one missing the point. Which is, that these dogs are a lethal menace and a danger to public safety. They are animals for christ's sake, and they are potential killers. In any other country they would have been put down immediately. The owner is responsible for the damage they have done, no matter to whom or under what circumstances. And these dogs living time bombs need to be eliminated before they strike again. And if allowed to live, they will do just that. Tick... tick... tick......Utter nonsense, but no point repeating myself over and over again

Source.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

• 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 61% (23) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012. In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32, about one citizen every 91 days.

iSabai makes a fair point don't you think ??????

Absolutely, now lets look at how many people have died at the hands of other people

Way Way off topic LC, the thread is about pit bulls attacking people, not people attacking

people.

Not at all, if you want to make case that dogs are a menace to society and bring up stats of people deaths caused by the dogs, you should also consider lethal snake bites, lethal bee bites, lethal mosquito bites and most of all human attacks on humans.

Then in comparison you will see who is more menace to society

There is no need to MAKE a case the facts speak for themselves these dogs, not just any dogs but pit

bulls, the subject of the thread, killed more people in America last year than all the other dogs in America

combined, 61% of all deaths caused by dogs in 2012 caused by PIT BULLS. How many deaths were

caused by other means is absolutely and totally irrelevant to this thread no matter how much you wish to

deflect the truth to protect the image of these KILLERS.

[SeaVisionBurma]

This thread is specifically about pit bulls attacking people, as per the context of the articles in the thread. - NOT about any other species attacking any other species - to say otherwise is very much off topic.

Either get back onto the specific topic, or we can deem the thread as having run its course..

[iSabai]

<snip>

Time to end this thread methinks.

[SeaVisionBurma]

This thread isn't going to redeem itself...

//CLOSED//