Pit Bull Attack Leaves 5-Year-Old Pittsburgh Boy 'Soaked in Blood'
On Friday, November 18, 5-year-old Hayden Stoll and his 10-year-old sister were playing on their front lawn in Herminie, PA, around 11:30 a.m., when an 80-pound Pit Bull ran into the yard and attacked Hayden, pinning him to the ground and clamping its jaws around his face.
The girl ran into the home and told her father and grandfather, “There’s a dog killing Hayden!” according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Herminie is a township, located 24 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.)
William Stoll, 77, and Hayden’s father, William Stoll, Jr., 34, ran outside and tried to pry the dog’s jaws loose from the boy’s face with their hands, but the dog would not release its grip. The child appeared unconscious as the dog continued to shake him violently, they said.
Finally, the boy’s father hit the dog with a rock and it let go, knocking over the grandfather as it ran from the yard, according to WTAE.com.
In the video report, the dog appears to be a large Blue Bully, which is a heavy, stocky, designer pit bull, touted as “family dogs.” http://www.wtae.com/r/29810794/detail.html
His grandfather was crying as he talked about Hayden to the Gazette, “His [Hayden's] eyes were open, and he was just staring. Both of us were soaked in blood.”
The little boy’s father said, “It was horrible. I thought I was going to lose him...It was the worst day of my life.”
Hayden was airlifted to Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, where he immediately underwent surgery. According to reports, he required numerous stitches for a large laceration from his right ear to his jaw and puncture wounds on the left side of his face, and surgeons placed a metal plate in his chin.
Although doctors feared that he would permanently lose control of his facial muscles, they said on Saturday that it appears he did not suffer permanent nerve damage, his father told reporters.
The five-year-old remains in the hospital, sedated, and will require surgeries over the next 15 years to reconstruct his face, doctors said.
The pit bull was captured two blocks away and is being held at by Sutersville Animal Control. An official stated that the dog was not wearing a collar but is probably owned because it is in good condition and appears to be healthy. Although its ears are cropped, the 80-pound Pit Bull does not have any scars that would indicate it has been used for fighting.
Fred Moran, of Sutersville Animal Control, also stated that a local postal carrier believed he recognized the dog but could not remember the address where he had seen it. The Pit Bull will be held for ten days at the shelter. The owner could be facing charges for failure to control the dog. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11324/1191286-455.stm
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
pit bulls may seem scary but I think they pale in comparison to another animal that I see featured in horrific articles all the time. Pit bulls may sometimes maim an innocent but Humans maim, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc. If we are going to ban dangerous animals, i'd start by banning humans.
You must be a Pit bull person as the comment is typical of taking the topic away from the subject(pit bulls) and turning it into something else.
I feel any breed that causes serious injury or death to another person or animal, the owner should be charged with a felony. Not the slap on the wrist that is usally given.
Breeds don't cause injury; dogs do. A dog of any breed is capable of causing serious injury to _someone_. Even a chihuahua can cause serious injury to a newborn.
So how many toy breeds have caused serious injury or death to another animal or human? And with serios injury, I'm talking about 25+ stiches being needed, limbs bitten off etc.
A toy breed could chew off the arm of a newborn. For all I know, such a thing might have happened. The point is, even a beagle is _capable_ of doing serious harm, and even if this is very rare, if it happens once or twice in a century then your proposed rule would make it too legally dangerous to own them. If you're limiting your rule to breeds which are _frequently_ dangerous, then you need an objective rule to determine which breeds do or do not meet that standard -- effectively outlawing those breeds which do not.
The problem is, no matter how many breeds you ban and exterminate, dog-fighters are perfectly capable of raising some other breed to be vicious and breeding them to be better fighters.
First off, nothing I have posted talks about banning or extermiating. All I have said if you own a dog that causes serious injury or death to a human or animal, you should be charged with a felony.
It will have the same result. If you get charged with a felony for owning a dog that causes serious injury to a human or animal, then it will be too legally dangerous to own any breed that conceivably _could_ cause serious injury under any circumstance. If it becomes too dangerous to own a collie because a collie conceivably _could_ cause serious injury to someone, then anyone who owned it would have to have it put down.
First off, nothing I have posted talks about banning or extermiating. All I have said if you own a dog that causes serious injury or death to a human or animal, you should be charged with a felony.
That's just not realistic, as any animal can go wild. Your proposal would effectively outlaw owning a dog.
Now, if the animal was trained to be fierce, or was known to be fierce -- that's a different story.