Dogs Bite Decatur Al: SPRING HILL, PASCO COUNTY FL - A NEIGHBOR'S 5 PIT BULLS "SOMEHOW GOT OUT" AND ATTACKED A TEENAGER ON HIS WAY TO SCHOOL AND THEN AN ELDERLY MAN SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURIES ON HIS LEGS

Friday, April 26, 2019

SPRING HILL, PASCO COUNTY FL - A NEIGHBOR'S 5 PIT BULLS "SOMEHOW GOT OUT" AND ATTACKED A TEENAGER ON HIS WAY TO SCHOOL AND THEN AN ELDERLY MAN SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURIES ON HIS LEGS

(Nutter says the meat grinders sleep in the room with their 1-year-old !!!)

(FOX 13) - A pack of dogs attacked two people this morning, injuring an elderly man and a teenager. Now, their owner is apologizing to his Pasco County neighborhood.

Deputies said a pack of three adult and two puppy PIT BULLS were roaming the Shady Hills area early Thursday morning. A 15-year-old boy and an elderly man were attacked by the three adult dogs at separate locations.

The first call came just before 7 a.m., reporting a pack of dogs roaming in the area of Crews Lake Wilderness Park. The teenager was bitten on the leg, possibly as he was walking to school or waiting for a bus, deputies said. His injuries are considered to be minor.

However, the elderly victim has serious injuries, deputies said. His exact age was not provided.

Body-worn camera image via PCSO

A third person, a responding deputy, was nearly bitten, but he ended up shooting one of the adult dogs so he could tend to the victims. According to owner Keith Humphrey, 'Nala' was later euthanized.

The other adult dogs were taken by Animal Control and the puppies are back with Humphrey.

Humphrey said he recently moved into the Lenway Road home and had secured the fence but apparently missed a spot. Clutching one of the puppies, he said he’s never had an issue with the dogs before and he questioned the choice to kill Nala.

“If you were being attacked, your pants would be ripped, or something would be ripped, wouldn’t it? He had no bite marks, he had no nothing. That gives him no right to shoot my dog,” he told FOX 13.

Video from the deputy's body-worn camera showed the elderly victim on the ground with the barking dogs around him. He later reveals bloody wounds to his legs and hand.

"Shoot 'em all!" the victim can be heard yelling in the video after the deputy fires on the lead dog. "Where the [expletive] did they come from?"

Investigators have not determined if Humphrey will face any charges.

“I’ll just tell the neighbor I’m sorry. It’s an accident, everything. It could’ve been someone else. I’m just glad the kid’s OK,” he added.

Deputies initially reported that the dogs were bulldogs, but Humphrey said they are all pure-breed PIT BULLS.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/dog-attacks-in-pasco-county-injure-teen-elderly-man-deputies-say?fbclid=IwAR2SBWT1bzLPIiOFQUVTIBVsc72bd81aAOJfJB4dtacaZ_GLERRylWJsgv8

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2019/04/25/teen--elderly-man-attacked-by-pack-of-bulldogs-in-shady-hills

2 comments:

Antidogbite said...: It's a shame the deputy didn't shoot all 5. That is one irresponsible "dog"owner, not making sure his pits couldn't get out, not having them collard/tagged and then having the nerve to say the victim wasn't even hurt? Makes my blood boil!; April 26, 2019 at 5:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Humphrey is an extreme nutter. Thank you for clarifying that your "bulldogs" are pure pit bulls. Idiot!

The deputy didn't have the right to shoot your shit bull? Hmm, I can't think of a better reason to shoot a shit bull. The deputy should have shot you too, Humphrey!!

Antidogbite, when I got done reading the article, I had the exact same thought, makes my blood BOIL!; April 29, 2019 at 9:14 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.