Am I missing something?

Reacted badly? Have you looked at the pictures of the child?



"As for Kevin, he is still healing after suffering a broken eye socket, fractured jaw and multiple gashes to his face."

Sorry, that's a lot more than "reacted badly".

Put the dog down. The fact that this is even being debated is just ridiculous.

^ this.

I don't consider Chloe a "safe" dog. And she has NEVER done damage like this. And in all honesty, once my mother starts having grandchildren frequent her house...we will likely have her put down to avoid any unfortunate circumstances, if 100% fool proof containment isn't an option.

I don't care what the trigger was (well, no...intense pain and such may get a pass - but if the trigger has a good chance of occurring in normal life, things get much more serious)...any dog that does THAT much damage is not safe, and if the owners want to euthanize, they should be able to do so without feeling like it is a bad decision.

Pretty much that. The dogs' owner isn't wanting it anymore. So what do we do with it now? Save it for what? It's a liability at this point.

Where are you seeing that the dog was in a fenced yard? Haven't seen anything to that nature.

Either way I think the dog should be put down.

The extent of the injuries is horrific. That child will be facing numerous painful surgeries to return to somewhat normal function. Grabbing a child's face and shaking them is more than simply "defending" his resources.

What are the legalities of surrendering a dog in this circumstance? Would you sign something to say that you give permission for the dog to be euthanized?

If so, wouldn't it be required to be put down?

If it were my dog I'd be there while it was put down. Because it's my responsibility and I'd want to be there, and to ensure that the deed was done without having someone decide that

Update: http://news.yahoo.com/phoenix-judge-spares-life-dog-mauled-child-212323436.html

Kind of shocked...

So now the solution is to keep the dog at a sanctuary forever and pull out his teeth?

And have him defanged....

From the sounds of things it will still be a better life for him than he previously had. But still not much of one.

Money, time, and resources could be expended on a dog that could potentially be rehabbed and live a fulfilling life.

Yeah just caught the defanged part. I don't get it at all.

Ridiculous, I don't even have words.

The verdict sounds worse than humane euthanasia imo, no matter where you come out on the issue.

Oh christ, really? *facepalm*

I don't know about this particular circumstance, but I know we've had cases in Vermont where elderly people have had legal wills saying that they want their (also elderly) animals euthanized when they die, and after long court battles, the animals have been "saved". I'd have been driving my dog to the vet myself rather than surrendering it.

This. It makes me so sad for that dog.

Agreed, this result is fraking ridicules! Actually it's assanine!

Yeah, that's definitely keeping the dog's welfare as the top priority. JFC. That's sickening.

This is just ridiculous. IMO, It would been better if the dog euthanized.

So...are all of his teeth being pulled or just his canine teeth? Defanged sounds like just the canine teeth..but those aren't the only teeth that do damage.

It's a ridiculous ruling and a sad outcome for the dog

From what I know, his canines are being grinded down and not removed.

No better, the dog should be euthed and the money spent to save dogs that could go on to be family pets.

White

Yes, I'd be doing the same.

And that is so very wrong to go against the deceased wishes. Honestly, if my parents couldn't take my girls for whatever reason, they are to be pts. Circumstances may be different for future dogs, but I'm appalled at the very idea of someone fighting to 'save' my dogs. I will make the decisions for my pets based on what I think is the best for them.