<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE DOG\u2019S STATE OF MIND<\/strong> Does anyone know what a pit mix that is dangerously over-stimulated looks like? In short, it can look \u201cexcited.\u201d In the video the \u201cbody cam police officer\u201d walks up to the foster and instead of asking him what happened, he gives the foster a scenario about what happened. The foster looks a little disoriented, and then agrees to the scenario. Then the foster goes on to answer another questions with \u201cI only started fostering [Rusty] yesterday.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n THE FOSTER\u2019S KNOWLEDGE\nOF THE DOG<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With less than a day of fostering Rusty under his belt, is it reasonable to think that the foster had known Rusty long enough to identify what Rusty looks like when dangerously over-stimulated at a public event? No, it is not. Was this an experienced foster with behavior dogs? From the foster\u2019s reaction on the video, probably not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is that important? Pits (in Rusty\u2019s case a pit mix) often have high prey drive, especially for small animals and unfortunately, at times, small children. From the ASPCA\u2019s Position Statement on Pit Bulls, \u201cToday\u2019s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog\u2014a dog that was bred to bite and hold <\/strong>bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. <\/strong> When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs\u2026.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n They go onto say, \u201cDespite our best efforts, there will always be\ndogs of various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society.\nWe can effectively address the danger\nposed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous \nenforcement of laws<\/strong> that focus, not\non breed,<\/strong> but on people\u2019s\nresponsibility for their dogs\u2019 behavior<\/strong>, including measures that hold\nowners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs<\/strong>. \u201c We have such laws in\nthe State of Texas and in the City of Dallas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n SERIOUS BODILY INJURY\nAS DEFINED BY THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The definition of serious bodily injury, as defined by Texas Health and Safety Code – HEALTH\n& SAFETY \u00a7 822.001:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2)\u2002\u201cSerious bodily injury\u201d\nmeans an injury characterized by severe\nbite wounds<\/strong> or severe ripping and tearing of muscle that would cause a\nreasonably prudent person to seek\ntreatment from a medical professiona<\/strong>l and would require hospitalization\nwithout regard to whether the person actually sought medical treatment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As seen on the police body camera video, when the responding\nofficers gather in a circle to discuss the situation, the female officer asks\nthe body cam officer if he has seen the injury. He says he has not. She tries\nto let him know the child needs medical attention and on a 1-10 scale, she\ngives the toddler\u2019s injuries a 6. \nThe police officer says the child is, \u201ccrazy ripped up and tissue hanging out.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n From DogBites.org: \u201cThrough selective breeding, pit bulls have developed enormous jaw strength, as well as a ruinous “hold and shake” bite style<\/strong>, designed to inflict the maximum damage possible<\/a> on their victims. This bite trait delivered winning results in the fighting pit. When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban in 2005, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from all other dog breeds. One of these characteristics was their lethal bite: “[pit bulls] inflicted more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. <\/strong>Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n RUSTY\u2019S BITE\nSTYLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is Rusty\u2019s bite style, not his breed<\/strong>, important? It allegedly took four or five grown men to pull Rusty off of the toddler after the unprovoked attack. One man was reported to be punching the dog to try to save the child. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most other dogs would have bitten and released the child, instead Rusty pinned him to the ground and if not for the human intervention, was well on his way to a \u201cruinous hold and shake\u201d that could have killed the small child. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the State law, the bite was considered \u201cunprovoked.\u201d The child was\nnot waiving an object, yelling, or threatening Rusty in anyway. Was Rusty defending himself or did his\nprey drive kick in? Was he just being a dog? Does it really matter? Despite\nbeing on a leash, he was on his way to mauling a small child to death and the\nlaw exists for just this reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Rusty was on a leash. Sec. 822.006 of the State law calls for a two pointed definition: the first point is the dog must be on a leash. The second point is the dog must be in immediate control or able to regain control. <\/strong>To summarize, on a leash is not enough; the dog must be in control of the handler. If the dog had been under reasonable and IMMEDIATE control, as required by law, Rusty would not have been able to LUNGE and connect with the moving child. (edit – As a point of clarifticaiotn: Rusty is charged under Health and Safety code pertaining to Serious Bodily Injury (SBI) laws)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the video the police get into an argument with the mother\nof the injured child. The police can\u2019t seem to hear and process the mother\nsaying, \u201cThe dog lunged toward the baby.\u201d \nAgain, by law, just because the\ndog was on a leash does not absolve the foster of his responsibility to control\nthe dog in a public space<\/strong>. Lunging towards a toddler is clearly not control. None of the witnesses on the police\nbody cam says the baby went up to the dog and the dog bit it \u2013 they say the baby\nran towards the dog and the dog lunged towards the baby. As noted above, the\nlaw allows for the dog owner\/ handler to regain control of their dog (822.06),\nwhich Rusty\u2019s foster was unable to do without the intervention of others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n THE RESCUE\u2019S\nRESPONSIBILITY AND INTERESTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rusty is who he is. He is a dog with animal instincts. He\ncan\u2019t really be faulted for that, but he can be deemed too dangerous for the\npublic. Here are a few things to know about Rusty. Rusty was sent by the rescue\ngroup to training. Generally speaking, rescues do not send well-behaved dogs to\nboard and training \u2013 it\u2019s expensive. Rusty likely went to training because he\nwas a behavior problem. Maybe jumping, mouthing, pulling, leash reactivity? Who\nknows. But we know he went and that is Rusty\u2019s first red flag. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Next, a known behavior dog (Rusty) was sent to a loud, busy,\nfrenetic public space for an adoption event. That\u2019s red flag number two and\nit\u2019s a big red flag. Once at the event, it did not appear that Rusty had a\nquiet place, like a kennel off in a corner, to relax and chill if he was\noverwhelmed or over stimulated. Why is this important? <\/p>\n\n\n\n A dog has a bite threshold and a thing called bite\ninhibition. The more excitement and or threatening things you add to a\nsituation, the lower the dog\u2019s bite threshold gets. It\u2019s called stacking in the\ntraining world. Aggression stacking, fear stacking, and excitability \u2013 they all\nstack to take a dog over threshold. \nWith a known behavior dog, it is very important to watch for stacking\nand to put out the fuse before the explosion. On the day at the park, Rusty\nshowed his stacking in his excitability, which resulted in him lunging, pinning,\nand holding down the child with his mouth and teeth, tearing the child\u2019s flesh\ncreating a legally defined \u201cserious bodily injury\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rusty should have never been a candidate to attend such a\nbusy and loud adoption event. Flag number three: Rusty\u2019s foster should have\nnever been allowed to take Rusty to such an event after 1 day or less of having\nRusty in his custody. Rusty\u2019s foster should have been trained on how to watch\nRusty for stacking and how to advocate for Rusty when he was getting over\nexcited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Red Flag number four: Was high risk Rusty wearing an \u201cask to\npet\u201d vest or leash? Was he behind a barrier? Nope. Without a solid attentive\nhandler or any visual signage on the dog, the public was left to assume a dog\nat a public adoption event – one\nthat is front and center \u2013 is not a safety risk. While all dogs have potential\nto bite, Rusty\u2019s incident was more than a dog giving a human a correction bite\n\u2013 his attack had serious and dangerous intention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is all to common for rescues to make missteps like these\nfor the pressure put on them to \u201csave them all\u2019 and to do it without spending\nloads on money on behavioral rehabilitation with expensive specialized trainers;\nbut to put a behavioral dog out in the public is a big responsibility that comes\nwith accountability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While under oath during a court proceeding, the head of the\nrescue said she would not take Rusty into her home. She should be applauded for\nher honestly. So why is the rescue fighting for Rusty\u2019s release to a sanctuary?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n IN WHO\u2019S INTEREST?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This dog bite scenario is not just about Rusty\u2019s life, the rescue\u2019s\nlawyers are likely looking to reduce the rescue\u2019s civil liability by keeping\nRusty alive. If Rusty is released, he couldn\u2019t be THAT dangerous, right? That\nwould make it look more like the bite was the victim\u2019s fault. Again, the law puts\nthe onus on the dog\u2019s foster\/handler for control of the dog, but the lawyers\nwill be looking for anything to sway a jury. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Does the rescue have insurance? Do the 501\u2019s officers have\ninsurance? These things matters when it\u2019s time to hold them accountable for a\nserious bodily injury claim. The fight for Rusty\u2019s life might be more about the\nfinancial impact on the rescue if his court ordered euthanasia, and his final\ndesignation as a dangerous dog, stands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Dallas City Code, a person who fails to secure a dog that makes an unprovoked bite while not on an owner’s property could be charged with a Class C misdemeanor. Under State Law things get a little more serious with serious bodily injury claims that can result in felony SBI charges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (a)\u2002A person commits an offense\nif the person is the owner of a dog and the person:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (1)\u2002with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code<\/a> , fails to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that occurs at a location other than the owner’s real property or in or on the owner’s motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code<\/a> , or death to the other person; \u2009or<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2)\u2002knows the dog is a dangerous dog by learning in a manner described by Section 822.042(g)<\/a> that the person is the owner of a dangerous dog, and the dangerous dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that occurs at a location other than a secure enclosure in which the dog is restrained in accordance with Subchapter D\u2009 \u20091 and that causes serious bodily injury, as defined by Section 822.001<\/a> , or death to the other person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (b)\u2002An offense under this\nsection is a felony of the third degree unless the attack causes death, in\nwhich event the offense is a felony of the second degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (c)\u2002If a person is found guilty of an offense under this section, the court may order the dog destroyed by a person listed in Section 822.004<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n (d)\u2002A person who is subject to\nprosecution under this section and under any other law may be prosecuted under\nthis section, the other law, or both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WHAT SANTUARY\nIS APPROPRIATE?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Leading industry professionals will recommend one of two sanctuaries for dangerous dogs. Neither of those sanctuaries is likely interested in accepting Rusty into their program. That says a lot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sanctuaries are not intended to house every mean or aggressive dog in the\ncountry. That would not be safe for employees and they would not be able to\nproperly care for the dogs. From a bite perspective, \u201cbite and release\u201d style\ndogs are more likely to get into a sanctuary than the \u201chold and tear\u201d bite\nstyle we saw from Rusty. One style is more damaging and life threatening to\nemployees and staff than the other. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, not all sanctuaries provide an equal quality of life for a dog either. Sanctuaries often turn into neglectful hoarding situations as they collect more difficult dogs over time. Sending Rusty to a reputable sanctuary, one that has recently been inspected by authorities, is important to the dog\u2019s safety and wellbeing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If the head of Rusty\u2019s rescue, and the countries leading sanctuaries, won\u2019t take Rusty because of the risk factor associated with his behavior, why would the City Of Dallas agree to send this dog out of the state? ? It would be unethical to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Recently, the City of Dallas intentionally removed the option to remove a dog from the city as a remedy after a dangerous dog conviction. This was part of the city’s dangerous dog law updates. The intent of that change is clear: do not make a known dangerous dog someone else\u2019s problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only would it be unethical to move this dog out of state, it is unethical to continue to allow this dog to suffer mentally. Where this is concerned, DAS is following the letter of the law. The rescue is allowing this dog to sit in protective custody, while arguing their right to an appeal, where the dog cannot interact with people or go outside. The dog is doomed to deteriorate further into madness day after day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Why? To save his life? The last year of his life has been miserable. He is literally going out of his mind. There are worse things than a humane euthanasia and Rusty has been experiencing them for the last year, through no fault of DAS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been the rescue\u2019s decision to selfishly keep this battle going instead of doing what is right by Rusty. The rescue continues to point fingers at DAS, when DAS is in fact, for the first time in years, doing their job and following the law. The dog\u2019s fate is not DAS\u2019 decision; the decision belongs to the courts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s talk about the intent of rescue in general. The average stay of a\nshelter dog at DAS is about a week. Seven days. Rusty\u2019s stay at the shelter has\ncost 1 dog a week, for the last 52 weeks, their lives. That\u2019s 52 dogs that\ndidn\u2019t get a chance because Rusty had their space. Is one dangerous \u201cbehavior\ndog\u201d more important than 52 other dogs? Is that the intent of responsible rescue?\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Was Rusty\u2019s mental health and well being considered knowing he continues to sit in protective custody, going crazy? Again, DAS cannot change this \u2013 they are following the law and the court order. They have no control to do anything but follow the law and the judge\u2019s orders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rusty\u2019s behavior issues are now much more intense and serious than when he entered the shelter. This is important to note as in order to transport the dog across state lines to the rescue\u2019s recommended sanctuary, the dog will need a health certificate from a veterinarian. DAS will likely not put their vets at risk to perform the exam. This means that the dog will need to be sedated (without a proper health check), catch-poled, potentially muzzled, put in a crate, and then will need to be driven out of the county to get his vet exam. The dog will need to be put in a heavy duty steel crate for transport as he will likely tear up a shipping crate. The dog will need to be re-sedated across his journey to NY \u2013 which is a risk in itself. Someone will have to get him out for potty breaks or he will have to sit in his own urine and feces until he arrives in NY. After a year in protective custody at the shelter, I wouldn\u2019t want to be the guy who has to take him out of his kennel and then GET HIM BACK IN IT. Transporting Rusty is a dangerous and risk process for all involved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Why Dallas would skirt the intent of the law and pass that risk on to well intentioned, but ill prepared and under trained group of people? I don\u2019t know. Public sentiment and direction to council has been for public safety first. The City should not allow pressure from one small, but vocal, segment of the population to dictate the dog\u2019s release, despite the risk to public safety. <\/p>\n\n\n\n CITY\nCOUNCIL\u2019S ROLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The public gave Dallas City Council a mandate to protect the citizens from dangerous dogs, spiking dog bites, and loose dogs. The Council passed on the mandate to the City Manager, and the City Manager hired new management at DAS to get the job done. It is Councils\u2019 job to stand behind their selected professional expert in executing the mandate. Council should not cave to public pressure from emotional rescues and animal advocates who would put the life of one dog over that of any city\u2019s citizens\u2019 safety. It is not Council\u2019s job to determine Rusty\u2019s fate or to try to influence the courts. The responsibility lies solely on the courts to interpret and enforce the law through their rulings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n DALLAS ANIMAL\nSERVICES ROLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, DAS\u2019 current Director, Ed Jamison, was given a mandate to reduce dog bites and dangerous dog issues while raising the live release rate at the shelter. Director Jamison\u2019s public position is: a known dangerous dog, that has causes serious bodily injury, should not be returned to its owner or sent to a sanctuary to become someone else\u2019s problem. (edit for clarity: The euthansia decisions was not the Director’s – it was the courts.)<\/em> We\u2019re not talking about a garden variety dog bite with Rusty, we are talking about serious bodily injury to a child. If the law was not written for this, what was it written for? <\/p>\n\n\n\n An enormous amount of time and money has been allocated to protecting the citizens from dangerous dog issues across the city. Progress and gains are being made, but allowing public pressure from the emotional rescue community to cause the city to disregard that a child was seriously injured, at an adoption event at one of the city\u2019s top tourist attractions at the city\u2019s core, that will create a return to lawlessness and lack of accountability that will take the efforts backwards years in just an instant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Allowing Rusty to leave Dallas to go to a sanctuary will\nalso create a continued air of discrimination towards southern residents. Citizens\nin the southern districts are not afforded the same access and political\ncapitol to influence the outcomes of their dogs\u2019 cases. Their dogs are currently\nbeing euthanizes for serious bodily injury incidents. A rescue group should be\nheld to the same standard as the city\u2019s residents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n THE COURTS\u2019\nROLE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As the attorney\u2019s argue appeal and jurisdictions issues in the courts, city attorneys should not bow to public pressure to release Rusty. The law is the law. If people don\u2019t like it, they can advocate for changing it, but our city and our courts should uphold the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To continue this fact based exploration based on law, we suggest all parties take a look at this Dangerous Dog Flow Chart provided by txstate.edu. It clearly shows that the Rusty is not entitled to an appeal (edited for clarification: the chart shows he is not entitled to an appeal under Dangerous Dog Laws. The current court case is if DPA is entitled to an appeal under SBI.) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n RUSTY\u2019S\nLEGACY | A LOOK TO THE FUTURE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Do we want Rusty to be euthanized for being a dog? Of course not. But humans failed Rusty long before his incident at he park. To allow Rusty\u2019s dangerous behavior problems to persist and to continue to endanger the public is not an acceptable answer. But Rusty\u2019s case can be a learning experience for all dog owners and rescues alike. We can grow and better help other dogs from Rusty\u2019s misfortune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We must agree to\nrecognize <\/strong>that not all dogs are safe for the public, even after time and\nmoney are put into saving and rescuing the dogs. Dogs are individuals influenced by both nature and nurture.\nNot all dogs can be made safe through love and good intentions. There are some\nthat we must say good-bye to. It is not a failure. We must not condemn those\nwho make those hard decisions. This is why the term no-kill is so dangerous. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We should strive to save them all, but we must acknowledge and recognize that occasionally, saving a dog equals a humane euthanasia. As our animal culture changes and the unwanted homeless dog population decreases and humane animal care becomes the norm, these tough decisions will become more and more infrequent. Our goal should always be the safety and quality of life for humans and animals alike, with the safety of humans paramount. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s let Rusty\u2019s\nlegacy be this:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rusty\u2019s case is not unique, just recently a leashed dog at a Starbucks in North Dallas lunged and bit a woman. The presumed owner was sitting at a table drinking a coffee when the dog lunged, biting the woman in the hand and stomach. The owner fled the scene. Recently, Dallas Cowboys player Dak Prescott\u2019s dog was in the news for getting loose, attacking another dog, and then biting the other dog\u2019s owner. A Collin County court ruled the dog needed to be removed from the city of Frisco. Is that dog in Dallas now? Living next to you? Prescott\u2019s dog allegedly broke through a fence to get to the dog it was attacking. According to national insurance institutes, the average dog bite cost $35,000. Are you ready for Frisco\u2019s ex-problem to become your next-door neighbor? Of course not. And we should not make Dallas\u2019 dangerous dogs someone else\u2019s problem either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No one ever wants to say a dog should be euthanized, but the law defines when a dog can and should be deemed dangerous and subsequently euthanized. (Edited for Clarification: State law also defines penalties for Serious Bodily Injury)<\/em> We need to respect those laws and let the courts work unemotionally to sort out the details and make fact based rulings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent our companion animals from ending up as court\ncases, we must learn how to clearly communicate with our four legged friends so\nwe can better advocate for them by recognize their signs of stress or\noverexcitement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The City, Rescues and\nAdvocates should teach:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dog bite prevention<\/strong> through focused:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Efforts to teach proper dog etiquette to owners and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Efforts to teach doggie body language to owners and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Risk Mitigation at Public Adoption Events<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Efforts to teach fosters signs of stress and anxiety in their foster dogs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Efforts to share best practices for behavioral dogs at adoption events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Training Resources<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Rescues should budget for training resources for foster volunteers and behavior dogs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Together, we can prevent situations like Rusty\u2019s from ever happening again. And isn\u2019t that what this should really be about? <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n ——Quick References—–<\/p>\n\n\n\n ASPCA Position Statement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.aspca.org\/about-us\/aspca-policy-and-position-statements\/position-statement-pit-bulls<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n DogBites.org<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.dogsbite.org\/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n State Law | Texas\nHealth and Safety Code |822.01<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/codes.findlaw.com\/tx\/health-and-safety-code\/health-safety-sect-822-001.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dog Bites Woman at\nStarbucks<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.fox4news.com\/news\/police-searching-for-owner-after-dog-bites-woman-outside-dallas-starbucks<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dangerous Dog Hearing\nFlowChart<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/gato-docs.its.txstate.edu\/jcr:053aac34-3896-42b2-8f7f-2570c1e79424\/Dangerous%20Dogs%20Flowchart.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dallas Morning News Coverage<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
We want to start with the dog\u2019s state of mind as this helps us understand the complexity of the situation. One of the witnesses seen in the police body camera footage gives us a little piece of very important information. She says the \u201cDOG WAS EXCITED and the child ran up to it.\u201d Did anyone ask her what she meant by excited? Or what that looked like? Excitedly wagging his tail? Maybe pulling and lunging excitedly on his leash? <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.gypsydogops.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Dangerous-Dog-Hearing-FlowChart-1024x608.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n