Dogs Bite Decatur Al: DAYTONA BEACH FL - A MAN, 57, AND A WOMAN, 54, WERE MAULED TRYING TO SEPARATE THEIR FIGHTING LAND SHARKS!

Monday, September 24, 2018

DAYTONA BEACH FL - A MAN, 57, AND A WOMAN, 54, WERE MAULED TRYING TO SEPARATE THEIR FIGHTING LAND SHARKS!

UPDATE:

A Daytona Beach woman fatally stabbed a PIT BULL that police said attacked her and her husband while they were pet-sitting.

Daytona Beach police said the couple was keeping the dog at their home in Pelican Bay. While feeding the pit bull and their own dog on Sunday night, the pit bull attacked their dog, police said.

Police said the pit bull turned on the husband, latching on to his arm. When the dog wouldn't let go, the wife grabbed a knife and stabbed the pit bull until the dog collapsed and died.

Both husband and wife were injured during the battle. The husband suffered arm and leg bites and the tip of his finger was bitten off. The wife had arm and leg bites and may have a broken wrist.

https://www.wesh.com/article/pit-bull-fatally-stabbed-after-attacking-daytona-beach-couple-that-was-pet-sitting/23398842

______________________________________________

DAYTONA BEACH — A man and woman were mauled by PIT BULLS when they tried to separate the fighting dogs Sunday night, authorities said.

The incident occurred at 533 Pelican Bay Drive in Daytona Beach and was reported at 6:48 p.m., dispatchers said.

According to information from emergency workers, the 57-year-old man suffered multiple deep puncture wounds to his forearm and had his right index finger bitten off.

The 54-year-old woman also suffered puncture wounds and a possible fracture to her arm, paramedics said.

No further information was available.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20180923/couple-mauled-trying-to-break-up-fighting-pit-bulls-in-daytona

2 comments:

Dayna Hamilton said...: Hey, I have NO problem whatsoever when it is pits and their owners that are affected by their choice of breed. If it were this way ALL the time we'd have less pit owners and pits.; September 24, 2018 at 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Has anyone ever broken up a Chihuahua fight? Did those people end up in the hospital with a bitten off index finger and a bone fracture? Didn't think so, but Chihuahuas are more aggressive than pit bulls.

Pit bulls are nanny dogs and are considered safe when wearing a tutu. These owners were negligent and did not raise their pit bulls right.; September 24, 2018 at 11:14 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.