|
July 29, 2006
When appearances are outlawed, only outlaws will have appearances!
Dogs with a pit bull "appearance" are illegal in Kansas City, Kansas: Under the city’s ordinances, it is illegal to have any dog with predominant characteristics or appearance of Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers or any combination of those breeds.There's a huge uproar in Kansas right now because a[n alleged] thug was keeping some dogs with a pit pull appearance in an [allegedly] uninhabitable house where he apparently [allegedly] fed them from time to time -- and a dog he now claims was a stray attacked an elderly woman living next door. From the looks of this story, it doesn't appear that pit bull ban is working very well: KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Charges were filed Friday in connection with a pit bull attack that killed a 71-year-old woman Thursday.There are a lot of news reports stating that the woman was mauled to death, but according to the medical evidence, the bites were not fatal: Preliminary autopsy results indicated McConnell died of a cardiac arrhythmia brought on by the trauma of the attack, Wyandotte County coroner Alan Hancock said.The problem with the pit bull ban legislation is that not only doesn't it matter whether your pit pit bull is the most loving animal in the world (or you the most careful and responsible owner), but your dog doesn't even have to be a pit bull! A Boxer/Dalmation cross would qualify under the "appearance" standard. In the haste to blame a breed, not much attention seems to be paid to the, um, "owner." In this case, the [alleged] thug claims he isn't the owner, and little attention seems to be paid to the obvious question of why the dogs in his care behaved this way; all that matters is the appearance of a breed: Lee, on his way into court for a hearing in an unrelated case Friday afternoon, told The Kansas City Star he had nothing to do with the attack.Oh, well obviously the creek was at fault then. I'm wondering how they would ever prove that he knowingly violated an ordinance prohibiting a dog with an appearance. To arrest the man was easy; he was already facing other criminal charges, and all they had to do was arrest him in court: Police said Lee was arrested at the Wyandotte County Courthouse where he had appeared on unrelated charges of possession of crack cocaine and battery of an officer.Any previous problems with the same house, same dogs? Of course! "She was so scared of the dogs. This has gone on for over a year. Those dogs have acted like they want to come through that fence," Chris McConnell told KMBC. "She worked in the garden every day, and they would growl and bark aggressively at her. She said, 'One day, one of those dogs are going to get me.' They finally got her."What kind of dog owner keeps his dogs in an uninhabitable house and doesn't know what dogs are eating the food he occasionally feeds them? From what I can see, this man exercised little to no care at all, as these dogs had previously showed up at neighboring residences. (Probably looking for food.) To recap, a dog neglected by a[n alleged] thug in a derelict house roams the streets and terrifies the neighbors, finally attacking one who later dies of heart failure. And the focus is not on the [alleged] criminal, or on how he treated the animal he won't admit he owned. No. The focus is on a particular breed, so that dogs can be identified and taken away from law-abiding responsible people. Based on their "appearances," of course. I'm sorry, but the illogic and the insanity involved here defy analysis. My dark side wonders about the human psychology underlying the anti-pit bull hysteria coupled with breed specific legislation. Might the lowly pit bull be a permissible scapegoat for something else? I've spent enough time on this that I might as well upload pictures of the "suspects": Yeah, yeah. Presumption of innocence and all that. (But at least we know the pit bull is guilty! Reassuring, isn't it?) UPDATE: My speculation about possible unconscious motivations was neither original, nor (it seems) unfounded. Not according to CHAKO Dog Blog: Donald Butler, a member of the Public Safety Committee for Horicon, Wisconsin, believes that Horicon should ban Pit Bulls. His rationale for wanting Pit Bulls out of Horicon is simple, if shockingly discriminatory.One of these days I'll figure out in which "ghetto" I belong. MORE: In my quest to be fair to both "sides," I should point out that Slate's Clara Jeffery has examined whether pit bulls themselves can be racist. Apparently so! And amazingly enough, so can other breeds. Believe it or not, such things depend on training! AND MORE: The pit bull racist symbology is older than I thought. From the New York Times, 1991: At the core of the book is a strangely baroque dog story. Bandit, Ms. Hearne writes, "belonged to an old man in Stamford, Connecticut, an old black man, Mr. Lamon Redd." On July 9, 1987, Mr. Redd's tenant and next-door neighbor, "one Mr. Johnson," quarreled with his girlfriend. She went home to her mother, Effie Powell, who in turn came over to Mr. Redd's yard and clobbered Mr. Johnson with a broom, an attack "which Mr. Johnson seems to have deserved," Ms. Hearne asserts. "Bandit brought the assault on his friend to a screeching halt, with his teeth." For six weeks or so, he "did time in the pound." And when he came home he was "in a sorry state." He "wet on the porch, was whupped, and bit Mr. Redd. At this point a neighbor called the police, Bandit was seized again, and a disposal order was issued."Sheesh. My often narrow focus on matters of logic makes me miss things like racial symbology. I hate to think it was staring me in the face for so long. Sometimes, logic can be a shortcoming I guess. UPDATE: I forgot to link to the famous "FIND THE PIT BULL" test. There's only one pit bull there, and even I had trouble spotting it. But that doesn't matter to today's dog grabbers. UPDATE: In breaking news story linked by Drudge, 68 pit bulls were found living in a dilapidated house -- with children: WICHITA, Kan. -- Two Kansas children are in protective custody after authorities found 68 pit bulls living in their home.68 dogs kept for dog fighting in a single house under filthy conditions with children? And the breed is at fault? But of course! (Will someone please tell me whose culture war Coco and I are supposed to be fighting?) posted by Eric on 07.29.06 at 08:59 AM
Comments
The nature of any dog is that it tends to do what its master wants it to do. That is no more an argument against larger or powerful dogs than it is an argument against guns. (It is only an argument against bad dog owners or bad gun owners.) Eric Scheie · July 30, 2006 10:09 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Do these people really think that if you abuse and underfeed a german sheperd, they'll just be kisses and sunshine?