Dogs Bite Decatur Al: WINDSOR GLEN, RANDBURG SOUTH AFRICA - A NEIGHBOR'S BULL TERRIER PULLED A DACHSHUND/TERRIER MIX "JESSIE" THROUGH A FENCE AND SEVERELY MAULED HER - SHE DIED 2 DAYS LATER - WHEN ALON GABER COULD NOT GET THE PIT TO LET GO, HE MADE A VIDEO OF THE MAULING AND IT IS GRAPHIC!!!

Thursday, July 28, 2016

WINDSOR GLEN, RANDBURG SOUTH AFRICA - A NEIGHBOR'S BULL TERRIER PULLED A DACHSHUND/TERRIER MIX "JESSIE" THROUGH A FENCE AND SEVERELY MAULED HER - SHE DIED 2 DAYS LATER - WHEN ALON GABER COULD NOT GET THE PIT TO LET GO, HE MADE A VIDEO OF THE MAULING AND IT IS GRAPHIC!!!

Jessie was the Queen of the House before she was attacked.

A family has been left devastated after their pet was attacked and killed by their neighbour's bull terrier.

"I saw the dog sitting where he killed her and he was licking his paws and the ground. I have never felt such anger." said Nicole Gaber," a dog owner from Windsor Glen.

Gaber received the phone call from her son, Tal, recently, Her husband, Alon, was at home in the meddle of an asthma attack, the first he has had since he was a teenager, while their dog, Jessie, a dachshund/terrier mix was being mauled by the dog next door.

Nicole rushed from a women's conference near Montecasino back home to attend to her husband. "I love my dog but at the moment I cared more about my husband's life," said Nicole.

Alon had done all he could to get the bull terrier off Jessie, but she was still left in a very weak state. The vet said she was too weak for surgery and they struggled to clean her wounds. She was put on pain meds, but she died two days later.

Jessie at the Parktown North Emergency Vet the day before she died. Photo supplied.

Jessie at the Parktown North Emergency Vet the day before she died. Photo supplied.

The bull terrier had pulled her through the palisade fence and mauled and dragged her around the neighbor's yard.

WATCH PART OF THE ATTACK HERE BUT IT IS GRAPHIC!!!

The bull terrier had attacked Jessie and the Gaber's other animals on previous occasions by jumping over the fence. READ MORE HERE...........

http://randburgsun.co.za/296144/warning-graphic-content-bull-terrior-kills-neighbours-dog/

6 comments:

Sweetie Pie said...: Almost every South African I know owns rifles or shotguns.

Use them.; July 29, 2016 at 4:18 AM
Sweetie Pie said...: P.S. The mutant in the video isn't a 'bull terrier'. It's a pit bull. Not that that much matters, since the 'bull terrier' is just a pit bull bred to have a weird nose.; July 29, 2016 at 4:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Just seeing the pictures, and the frozen shot on the video makes me want to cry. When will nutters see the suffering caused by pit bulls? Oh, I know. NEVER!!!!!; July 29, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Sweetie Pie said...: To Anonymous @ 9:35 AM:

They see it. They enjoy it. Not only when it's someone's normal dog, but just as much when it's someone's little child. A dog or a child's torturous death gives them the chance to be center of attention and to profile themselves as superior, blabbing all the usual pit bull advocacy moron talking points.

Make no mistake. They see the suffering. They enjoy it. It's the whole reason they choose to own pit bull type dogs.; July 29, 2016 at 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...: You know what Sweetie Pie? I think you're right. There can be no other explanation than they enjoy it.; July 30, 2016 at 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Can't watch. The pictures are horrible enough. To actually watch the poor creature's terror and agony would be too much. Goddamn it, I hate these dog-shaped aggregations of defective DNA!
—AMinYVR; July 31, 2016 at 1:50 AM

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

(Code 1907, §5196; Code 1923, §9274; Code 1940, T. 7, §1084.)

_______________________

http://animaluncontrol.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-is-it-so-annoying-anyway.html

http://www.vestaviahills.net/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/AnimalDogControl/tabid/143/Default.aspx

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=14634&stateID=I&stateName=Al

http://www.dogsbitedecatural.com/2011/06/vestavia-hills-al-animaldog-control-is.html

_______________________________

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-3-23.htm

Section 13A-3-23

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.