Are pit bulls ever a victim in the public's eye?
To recap the story: Groomer Kathryn Tucker was hired by Waterford resident Laurie Crouch, who has multiple sclerosis, to trim his nails. Crouch alleges that Tucker tied a variety of collars and leashes around his neck and muzzle and then sat on him with a male friend, suffocating and killing the dog before its nails could even be trimmed. Now, Tucker is facing animal cruelty charges. She was recently ordered not to have contact with any animals and told the court she didn't own any. When the court learned she had four dogs in her possession, she was called back to court yesterday. She didn't appear and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
What did people have to say after reading the latest story?
zedman2222 wrote: "Heck, the dog was part pit bull! Let it go ..."
BigBoss added: "Why hasn't the owner of this dog been tried and convicted yet of violating the pitbull ban? Even if the groomer killed this dog, who cares? It was going to be taken away and put down due to the ban on these dangerous beasts. Sounds like this dog groomer did everyone a favor by preventing this pit bull from hurting a child, something all pit bulls eventually do."
alfred50 wrote: "I can't see what difference on less pit bull would make. Even a half one. We should be allowed to shot them on sight."
Really, alfred? You really think you ought to have the right to shoot my dog as he poops in the yard, simply because you were walking by my house and saw him? Dogs are not target practice. And my dog is my property, and I make sure he stays on my property, and nothing gives you the right to shoot him because you don't like his breed.
That's not to mention the average person has a pretty tough time actually identifying a pit bull. So now you should just be given the license to go around shooting whatever dogs you think might be a pit bull? Ridiculous.
To BigBoss, the issue of Crouch owning a pit bull in a township where they are banned is valid, however, I'm unaware of any procedures to prosecute a person for having previously owned a pit bull that is no longer violating the ban. Even when a pit bull is found in the township, the township usually gives the owner warnings and notices to rehome the dog outside the township before any legal action is taken. The township does NOT automatically euthanize all pit bulls found to be living in the township, as your comment alludes.
The rest of your comments are terribly offensive. You ask who cares? I do, and you should too. It's not like this groomer runs a pit bull specific business. What if your neighbor hired her to trim the nails of his super high-energy Labrador and in the process of trying to get him to stay still, she kills that dog too? Why does the breed have to make it acceptable to use unacceptable and dangerous practices?
And every pit bull eventually hurts a child? That is so incorrect I won't dignify it with a response.
It just blows my mind, the reaction of some people. The ignorance. It's sickening.
I'm ending this post with a short video featuring Ian Dunbar, arguably the most well-respected behaviorist working right now. And yes, Dunbar advocates pit bulls as therapy dogs to work specifically with children.
Read previous articles about the dog groomer case:
Disabled woman grieves loss of her best friend
Woman gets new puppy to replace her best friend WITH VIDEO
Woman charged with animal cruelty in death of dog
Dog groomer pleads not guilty to animal cruelty charges WITH VIDEO
Warrant issued for dog groomer's arrest WITH VIDEO