Dogs Bite Decatur Al: LONDON ENGLAND - MARIO PERIVOITOS, 41, WAS MAULED BY HIS STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER IN HIS LOCKED APARTMENT AND DIED FROM BLOOD LOSS FROM A HORRIFIC NECK INJURY

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

LONDON ENGLAND - MARIO PERIVOITOS, 41, WAS MAULED BY HIS STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER IN HIS LOCKED APARTMENT AND DIED FROM BLOOD LOSS FROM A HORRIFIC NECK INJURY

Normans Close, N22 Pic: Google Street View

UPDATE - There was no crew filming at the time of the attack and first responders had to break through the door that was locked from inside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358340/Staffie-owner-mauled-death-BBC-TV-crew.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/29/man-mauled-to-death-by-dog-during-interview-bbc-film-crew-staffordshire-bull-terrier

The dog, which is not one of the breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act, mauled its owner to death at his home in Wood Green, north London.

Metropolitan Police officers, along with London Ambulance Service paramedics were called to an address in Normans Close, N22, at around 10.25pm last Monday.
Pictured, medics fight to save the life of a man named locally as Mario Perivoitos

Pictured, medics fight to save the life of a man named locally as Mario Perivoitos

The victim was taken to a local hospital but could not be revived and was pronounced dead a short time after midnight.

A post-mortem examination found he died from hypovolemic, or hemorrhagic, shock, resulting from catastrophic loss of blood or other fluids and damage to the airway consistent with a dog bite.

Officers say his family have been informed and his death is not being treated as suspicious.

Sky sources say a TV crew was at the house interviewing the victim for a forthcoming programme when the attack took place.

A BBC spokesperson said: "We are aware of an incident but we cannot comment any further as it's an ongoing investigation."

The Met has confirmed the dog has been seized and is being held in police kennels until its fate is decided.

Breeds that are banned under the Act are the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero.

http://news.sky.com/story/dog-owner-killed-by-his-pet-staffordshire-bull-terrier-10816923

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358340/Staffie-owner-mauled-death-BBC-TV-crew.html

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: I'm scratching my head. Staffordshire Terrier is a fancy name for pit bull terrier. That's okay, the end result is the same. To quote Shakespeare, "A pit bull by any other name would kill as effectively".

I'm wondering if the TV crew recorded any of the incidents that led up to the deadly mauling?; March 29, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Dayna said...: Sounds like the dog did everyone a favor by getting rid of two bad eggs at once. No owner = no shitbull.; March 31, 2017 at 9:32 PM

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.