Saturday, July 18, 2015

MODESTO CA - MODESTO BEE: OPINION BY MIKE DUNBAR - "PIT BULLS ARE INAPPROPRIATE PETS FOR CRIMINALS...A CONVICT CAN'T HAVE A GUN SO WHY SHOULD A CRIMINAL BE ALLOWED TO BUY A LICENSE FOR A DOG THAT IS JUST AS DEADLY AS A GUN?"

JULY 17, 2015
Salazar used his pit bull as a weapon to attack one of his two victims on a night in July 2014. He also used a knife, and for that he was convicted (along with assorted other crimes). But just as surely as the “sharp instrument” was a weapon, so was his dog.
Salazar, his girlfriend and their pet pit bull were out and about in Ceres when they came across a guy trying to fix a flat tire on his bicycle. First they took the victim’s hat then tried to take his backpack. When he resisted, Salazar stabbed him. When the victim ran, Salazar sicced his dog on him. When Salazar caught up, he took the backpack while his girlfriend made off with the bicycle, flat tire and all.
Perhaps this charming couple was ready to call it a night, but their dog wasn’t. The dog ran into the street and was hit by a car.
The driver, not being one of those people who hits an animal and just keeps on going, stopped to check on the creature’s condition. That was a mistake of compassion. Salazar confronted him, took a few swings then stabbed him, too.
Both human victims were eventually treated and have recovered. Salazar now resides in a cell and his girlfriend, after serving a year in county jail, is out on probation.
But what about the dog? We don’t know what happened to it. But we think it is inappropriate for Salazar or his girlfriend ever to have a pit bull again.
After all, Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson would never issue Salazar a gun permit; convicts can’t have them. So why should Salazar or his girlfriend be allowed to buy a license for a dog that is just as deadly as a gun?
That’s not hyperbole. We can’t forget the four pit bulls that escaped their yard last October and attacked a 77-year-old woman in her yard. When her 54-year-old son came to her aid, they turned on him and mauled him to death. Pit bulls aren’t like many other breeds. As we cited in our March 22 editorial, 27 people were killed by pit bulls or close cousins in 2014, according to the website dogsbite.org. Of the 203 deaths-by-dog since 2005, two thirds have been attributed to pit bulls.



Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mike-dunbar/article27545668.html#storylink=cpy
This is a broader issue than whether a single criminal (assuming he gets out of jail) should be allowed to own a pit bull – or any aggressive breed. Communities should be allowed to make and enforce sensible laws relating to ownership of dogs that can be used as weapons.
California has a law that prohibits communities from enforcing “breed-specific” laws. Meaning the law recognizes no differences between pit bulls and dachshunds.
If Salazar had sicced his Pekingese on the first victim, we doubt there would have been much of a problem escaping. Perhaps he never would have caught up and the victim could have kept going.
“We’ve had this conversation before,” said Christianson. “It is absolutely inappropriate for (Salazar) to have a pit bull ... Mr. Salazar used (the pit bull) as a weapon. He used it for intimidation or in the furtherance of a crime. … I don’t think he should (be allowed to own pit bulls).
“But how do you prohibit felons from having certain breeds of dogs?” asked the sheriff.
To do that, you’d have to pass a law because no law prohibits it now.
Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Riverbank, says she would consider the possibility of such legislation next year. “We’ve looked at a number of different (approaches) ... but a strict prohibition on felons from owning pit bulls in the same way they’re prohibited from owning a gun” is what she is considering.
Would such a law have a chance to pass?
“Hard to say. I would sure hope the chances would be very good; it seems like a common-sense piece of legislation,” Olsen said. “But the animal-rights lobby is strong. If they decide to rally against the bill, the chances would be slim.”
It would be nice if such a law existed before Salazar, or any of his current roommates, arrive in our communities.

MORE FROM MIKE:  http://www.modbee.com/opinion/editorials/article3499964.html

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mike-dunbar/article3655745.html

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/editorials/article15374450.html






Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mike-dunbar/article27545668.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mike-dunbar/article27545668.html#storylink=cpy

3 comments:

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

exactly

Anonymous said...

The reason the pathetic "animal rights" lobby doesn't want such a bill to pass, is because it is a form of BSL. As soon as you through pit bull in front of anything, like, a pit bull must be muzzled, a pit bull must not be owned by a felon, etc., it sends the message that pit bulls are different, and we don't want that now, do we?

By the way, HUMAN RIGHTS supersede animal rights any day of the week. We do need Breed Specific Legislation all across the board. People and animals are being harmed by pit bulls on a constant basis. This needs to end.

We all need to quit catering to the selfish animal rights lobby, stop being afraid of them, and stand up for OUR RIGHTS!

Cardinal said...

There are a few "easy flaws" in this editorial, well-meaning as it is. One of the most glaringly obvious ones is this: Felons are drawn to certain breeds for a reason.

Still, the columnist brings up a good point. Sometimes broad questions have to be asked to get the public to think. As for the treatment of animals, it makes much more sense to lobby for welfare rather than rights.