Dogs Bite Decatur Al: WINONA, MONTGOMERY COUNTY MS - A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS MAULED BY 6 PIT BULLS WHILE RIDING HIS BIKE - AIRLIFTED TO UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER

Monday, March 18, 2019

WINONA, MONTGOMERY COUNTY MS - A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS MAULED BY 6 PIT BULLS WHILE RIDING HIS BIKE - AIRLIFTED TO UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER - ICU

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text and closeup

Janice Palmertree‎Mississippi Prayer List

Please pray for Aden.
He was mauled by 6 pit bull dogs in Winona, Ms. He is in a Jackson hospital and it is very bad.

UPDATE:

‘Kill them,’ says owner of dogs that mauled Mississippi boy who played dead to survive

UPDATE:  https://www.gofundme.com/prayers-for-aden-green?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dn_cpgnstaticsmall_r&fbclid=IwAR38ewu9HDDeo94vBP3Z3iJZ8GemF69igbjUGX5f_EbE4XXJ0xGJmstTu1U

UPDATE:  https://www.wcbi.com/montgomery-county-boy-fighting-life-attacked-dogs/

UPDATE:  https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/03/18/child-mauled-dogs-coma-owner-not-charged-dog-attack-mauling/3203225002/

(WCBI) – A tragic story out of Winona Monday morning.

A 12-year-old boy is fighting for his life after half a dozen dogs, believed to be PIT BULLS, mauled him. According to Montgomery County Sheriff Bubba Nix, the vicious attack happened Friday afternoon.

The child was riding his bike along Sawyer Road, in Montgomery County, when a pack of dogs mauled him.

A passerby and his son saw the attack. They quickly got out of their car and fought the dogs off.

The boy was airlifted to Jackson, where he is currently in the ICU. Sheriff Nix said the child has a long road to recovery.

The owner of the animals will not face charges because the county does not have a dog ordinance, according to Sheriff Nix.

All 6 animals were captured and euthanized.

WCBI reporters are reaching out to family members of the child and talking to investigators.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: There's got to be SOMETHING they can charge the owner with. Public nuisance, at the very least?; March 18, 2019 at 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Unfortunately, MS has the 'one bite free' view of dog attacks, meaning that unless someone comes forward and proves the owner knew these dogs were a menace, there's nothing this horrible dog owner can be charged with. https://dogbitelaw.com/one-bite-state/mississippi-dog-bite-law; March 19, 2019 at 4:35 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.