Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
1. Our sympathies are primarily with the woman who was painfully mauled and died as and apparent consequence, and her family.— January 3, 2015 4:28 p.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
As this article's comments are approaching 100, would a summary of the relevant points be useful? Is this number of comments a record? From the responses, it appears that the piece has touched a nerve . . . It appears to me that emotion (perhaps understandable given the facts, but inexcusable on the part of mature adults) persists in crowding out logic. Perhaps some kind of follow-up piece is warranted? It also appears to me that clarity is being sacrificed to opinion, and that discussion of points with which one disagrees is often limited to simply another opinion rather than extending the discussion with intellectual discipline. At long last, can we stop crying havoc and un-cage our dogs of civil discourse? I know not what others may say, but I don't want an aggressive dog in this fight--I want a dispassionate re-examination of the facts. At least for starters.— January 3, 2015 noon
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
I'd be most interested in real facts about this alleged phenomenon. I don't doubt that it has been observed to occur, but I suspect that the "information" is anecdotal. The problem is that there are a lot of variables, some of which may be very difficult to tease out, and those variables may be one of many "smoking guns." And maybe not.— January 3, 2015 11:24 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Don: It is fundamental prejudice to tar a whole race by the actions of some subset of that race. Do I misunderstand? If so, please set me straight. A Queensland Heeler tried to rip my guts out once, entirely unprovoked. I was petting the dog, after presenting my self for a sniff on the back of the hand, held low, with the owner's permission, who had the dog on a leash. Animal control placed the dog under house arrest for 30 days (?), but did not kill it. I did not acquire a hatred for the breed, and was not angry with that dog, but I was disappointed with the owner, who thought she could control her dog with a leash. I did not insist that the dog be killed, as I had a share of the blame, but it probably should have been, just as the dogs in this case, regrettably, had to be. “We” know nothing about the history of those dogs, and too little about the owner, but I smell a fundamental misunderstanding about animal behavior. I have not lost a whit of respect for you, Don, but I am a little disappointed that you appear to be unwilling to consider points that seem to me to contribute to a less emotional examination of fundamental principles that may be important, not only to this case, or even the broader issue of dog behavior and animal behavior, including the human animal. If we were to damn all humans based on the actions of a powerful, authoritarian majority, we would all be awaiting the gas chambers (drones are too expensive). It appears that we have mad dogs at the two extremes of human culture, the extreme “bottom” and at the “top.” Thank you for providing a stimulating forum for reasoned analysis of important phenomena. The sooner we realize that none of us walk on water, the sooner reason can be applied.— January 3, 2015 10:47 a.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
See: jonesc Dec. 30, 2014 @ 8:28 a.m. "Studies," if they are truly scientific, try to prove their hypotheses wrong, not right. Statistics can be warped--lies, damn lies, and statistics again. You are right about one thing, genetic variations, mutations, do produce differences IN INDIVIDUALS, including psychopathologies, in ALL animals--as I said. Aggression CAN be bred into animals, but so can "docility." So-called "pit bulls" are the result of selective breeding, sometimes opportunistic breeding can do the same, if the conditions of culture are right or ripe for it. Sure, there are some individuals that, for genetic or environmental reasons are aggressive. That's where training and better environments come in. But damning every dog that "looks" like a pit bull to you or anyone else is simple prejudice. But just as genetics can produce more or less aggression does not mean that environment cannot do the same thing.— January 1, 2015 11:10 p.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Don, I don't think you read my post carefully enough. I guess I didn't read your piece carefully enough either, as I missed the part about giving her instructions on dog training. The police should have had the dogs picked up rather than telling them to keep them fenced in. It's not the same as telling her to keep her pistol in a safe. As I said, a true educational opportunity was missed by animal control. Where's the report on the condition of the fence? Apparently, both the police and animal control needs more education.— January 1, 2015 10:52 p.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Continuation from previous post: The killing of the dogs (“euthanized” my Aspidistra . . .) certainly prevented further events, but the laying on of a felony to a young woman may or may not be a reasoned adjudication of the matter either. “Following the law” absent the application of reason is common, and an indictment of the system of jurisprudence on its face. While saddling a young woman with a felony might satisfy the emotional need for revenge, it may not serve the woman or the cause of justice as well as some alternative, such as community service, perhaps learning and teaching others about the duties of dog ownership. Perhaps the sentence is too little; perhaps too much. We do not know the details, and to pop off with conclusions is an abdication of civic responsibility. “Pit bulldogs” are not, by breeding, demonstrably any more likely to attack and kill than any other dog. Any big, strong dog is capable of killing or injuring, and must not be trained to attack, except upon command. Ask any K-9 officer. The problem is, many dogs, unfortunately frequently “pit bulldog” types are often “trained” by ignorant, “scum-sucking pigs” who should be the real felons. There oughta be a LAW! How ironic is that?— January 1, 2015 7:12 p.m.
Appellate court weighs grisly pit bull death scene
Having once been abysmally ignorant about dogs, but perhaps now having a somewhat better understanding of them than most, I can likewise understand the emotion and misunderstanding at both extremes. But strawman fallacies and other devices to manipulate a discussion rather than to join into a common search for truth retard, rather than advance, the discussion. Dogs are bred from pack animals--wolves. But absent some series of stressful events, and a triggering event that prompts an attack, no animal naturally "wants" to attack for no reason. All animals, including humans, can suffer psychopathologies induced by the “slings and arrows” of outrageous treatment and events. Take a look at the comments that have been made here, and assess for yourselves where reason has reigned and where the discussion has tended toward a dogfight. I cannot judge this particular case, and therefore must withhold judgment, pending a comprehensive understanding of all relevant information. There is much “we” don’t know. We do not know what motivated the young woman to acquire the dogs in the first place. We do not know where she obtained them. We do not know if she was given any instruction about how to handle dogs. We do not know whether or not they were given any training before or after their acquisition. Apparently, the dogs’ propensity to attack was known prior to the fatal one. The “animal control officer” should have exercised control in the form of education after the apparent behavioral problem was first observed. Instructing the owner to “confine” the dogs falls far short of the state’s responsibility to provide for the public health and safety. This is the first clear failure. The young woman could reasonably have been expected to be ignorant of her duties and responsibilities as a dog owner, simply because of her age. The “animal control officer” failed to exercise reasonable judgment in not taking the dogs into custody in the first instance, having them assessed, and educating the dog owner in her responsibilities. When one “adopts” a dog from the ‘pound, one is questioned by the professional staff and the prospective “adoptee” is observed in handling the dog in an enclosed dog run. If the prospective “adoptee” is then considered basically qualified for dog ownership, he/she is given an information sheet that is a very good (if perhaps lacking in some respects and might be improved) guide to dog ownership. Punishment is neither useful, nor should it be permissible, in the case of dogs, and it is questionable whether or not it is indicated in a case where the state has failed in its duty to inform and protect. More later . . .— January 1, 2015 7:11 p.m.
New faces at CPUC. But new broom unlikely
Just for info, I left some posts relevant to this on the "Peevvy Lovefest" piece of Dec. 22. How rapidly posting wanes!— December 26, 2014 8:41 p.m.
San Diego not top-ranked as singles haven
Has the term, "swinging" acquired a new meaning, or have I misunderstood the meaning for, lo, a half century or so? As to the Filner kangaroo court, as in everything else, we should acquire the habit of inserting links to references where proof can be found.— December 26, 2014 8:37 p.m.