Discussion in 'Dog News and Articles' started by Lilavati, Nov 27, 2007.
Sentenced to Death
Congo has sparked a serious illegal debate.
I agree with the family on this. It's not about immigration, or racism, and it shouldn't be. Its about what happened in that garden. Although I do not support illegal immigration, I have to say, I don't see what it has to do with this case.
It doesn't matter whether the gardener was a illegal immigarant, a legal immigrant, black, white, brown, yellow, red or green. The same basic facts could happen with a gardener of any race, from any nation. The only thing in this case that might be different is that the entire event might have occured in English. (and since dogs don't speak English or Spanish, the only issue there is one of the owner's possible negligence in warning) That's it. And I agree with the gardener's lawyer . . . it a little spooky that people are supporting Cogno BECAUSE the gardener was an illegal immigrant. It shouldn't matter. Not on the issue whether Congo lives or dies.
If you are supporting Congo, it should be because you believe the family's account and feel that he is not a vicious or dangerous dog and was only doing what he thought he had to do. Should an illegal have the right to sue over this? . . . Well, they do, but you can disupte whether they should be able to. But that isn't the issue: this is not about money anymore (that was settled in the insurance judgement). Its about whether Congo is dangerous. If he's dangerous, then I presume he is not checking to see if you are a citizen or not before he bites you. If he's not dangerous, then he's not dangerous to citizen's and immigrants alike.
On a separate note: The reason I chose the family's story for my examples above was simply because it was the only coherent story I've heard . . the version told by the AC is fragmentary and spattered with discredited 'facts' about dogs, such as raw meat makes them vicious. We're never actually heard the gardener's version of the tale, only that it has changed 3 times. That makes me pretty inclined to believe the version that hasn't changed . . .
As far as I can tell, there isn't too much disupute about what happened . . . it seems centered on the degree of the gardener's provokation, the responsibility of the owners and the violence of Congo's response . . . basically, whether Congo is vicious because of the damage he did, and whether or not the dogs were actually hit with the rake. The other issue seems to be whether the gardener got enough warning from the owners, which has little to do with Congo. Its not the big facts, but the details that are in dispute . . . that and what makes a dog a vicious dog as opposed to one protecting its human and canine family.
Honestly, those who have an agenda, whether it's race, immigration or the price of Chinese widgets are going to use any highly publicized story they can twist to serve as fodder for propaganda for their ends.
Looking at Congo, his size and obvious strength, and then seeing the bites on the gardener . . . well, if Congo were truly a vicious dog those bites would have been a lot worse and the gardener would be missing rather large pieces of himself rather than a series of puncture wounds. Looks to me like Congo was the soul of discretion with those bites.
And, like Lilavati so aptly pointed out, it's highly doubtful that Congo checked for the guy's work permit
Has anyone read any of the news storys included in this blog?
I will warn you, the blog writer doesn't seem to have to much sympathy for Congo and his family.
Well, predictably, he has his own axe to grind . . . and seems to ignore the aggrivating factors that might have motovated Congo . . . on the other hand, there is some information there that I didn't have previously . . . as I think I said above . . one of the things you learn in law school, and should learn in life (and all to many to not) is that truth is complex.
I still think the issue shouldn't be (and if that law passes won't be) the negligence of the owners, but rather how Congo acted in response to the gardener's behavior . . . which we don't have updates on.
Still, I think much less of the family when I find out the dog's were not vaccinated (I assume that means rabies, because other vaccinates are not required in most areas) and not liscensed (they can CLEARLY afford to pay the nominal charge). I had thought, with the raw diet and the info available, that they were responsible small breeders . . . I now have my doubts.
One thing I do totally agree on, though, is what the heck does the gardener's race and nationality have to do with it? It really doesn't help Congo at all . . . what was a question of dog behavior, of the rights of dog owners (not vs. immigrants, just in general) and the "rights" of dogs to be judged by their own standards, and not asked to have human intelligence and judgement . . .has become a poitical issue laden with some of the most controversial issues in our country . . . the superior court judge will know that, and will have to fight the urge to comdemn Congo just so that he doesn't seem racist (judges are human). That's not fair to the judge and it sure as hell isn't fair to Congo.
The other thing I agree on, is why such outrages as the Ohio situation do not motovate people to protest. He's right on that. 180 days in jail for walking a dog never found vicious? Give me a break.
It's sad how a lot of the blogs relating this story have deteriorated into whether the gardener was illegal or not and if you support Congo's law, then you're obviously xenophobic or hate humans. On the plus side, I know where a lot of the crazy people are lurking!
Lilavati: Read through the post and I have to ask - how do you take 'reasonable' precautions to warn people to stay out of your fenced yard if your stupid insurance company refuses to let you put up 'Beware of Dog' signs? Their position is that if I put up the sign, then I'm acknowledging my dogs might bite a would-be trespasser or burglar and they would refuse to pay if I'm sued by the lawbreaker. If I would contain my dogs so my house and property can be burglarized in relative safety for the robber, then I can put up a sign. How do you fix stupid???
P.S. I do have No Trespassing, No Hunting signs and tried putting up a Beware of Mice sign (darned things blew up the neighbor's truck - they're dangerous!) but the insurance agent made me take that one down. My next sign, I think, is going to be the 'Beware of... Well, just beware' sign I saw in a catalog. Surely, they can't get me for telling people to beware!
Get one that like this:
Or one that says Dogs on Premises
Get a different insurance company. They're delibrately screwing you . . . preventing you from warning, then refusing to reprisent you if you don't warn. That's stupid, immoral, and a creative way of dodging contract obligations. I suspect that if you dogs DO bite someone, sign or no sign, they will won't cover you.
I know that's not really what the topic is about but this sign is good! I've read magazine articles in the animals mags about animal control officers etc saying which signs should be put up. He said don't put up the ones that actually state your dog is dangerous, meaning you know it, which is bad if your dog attacks, or the one's that say "my dog can make the fence in so-many seconds, can you?" but he says ones that just say there's a dog/dogs running free in here, your choice to come in, they're good.
ANYWAY back to Congo. The dogs weren't registered? Wow, that doesn't help the case then does it?
Any recent updates on Congo and the other dogs?
Yea we wanted to get one with greys on it because a bunch of stupid idiots around here would use our fences to get back and forth to the easements along the back of the houses on my road. But once walker matured they stopped that. I think his face in teh window and him barking scared them.
Not necessarily. In some states having a "Beware of Dog" sign means you are admitting to having a dangerous dog (bad idea) while in other states having a "Beware of Dog" sign is considered sufficient warning for trespassers. Basically, check your state and city regulations and see what they say.
I feel bad for Congo, but not for his owners who sound irresponsible. (Pretty obviously BYBs, have unlicensed dogs, have been sited multiple times by animal control, are unable to call off their dog when it's attacking.) Their dogs sound untrained. I feel sorry for the dogs, but frankly part of the reason they're in trouble is a series of poor decisions on the part of the owners. Too bad the dog is the one who has to pay the price.
Is Congo the sire to the pups? How old were the pups? I did not know that he was 18 months old at the time of the incident...?
Valid point, Boemy. I can see how that would be the case, though its a very stupid thing to call a warning an admission. However, I can see how the case law in some areas could have gone that what. On the other hand, I have very little faith in insurance companies when it comes to dogs . . .
Congo sired the pups when he was 1 yr old.
Well, I've come to my conclusion on this issue.
By all means, save Congo....BUT, he must be neutered and re-homed. I would prefer they remove the rest of the dogs from that property as well.
They have no breeding ethics, and I doubt their ability to control the animals when needed. The wife wasn't home when the landscapers arrived because she was out chasing down their loose dog.
I believe that sending Congo back into the same environment may be setting him up for failure.
Oh, Snark! Just put up "Beware the JubJub Bird" signs
I saw sec port how said
I can see any laws that ponder what goes on in a dog's mind when they make decisions,...the cue for AR's to immediately begin on the cruelty of confinement (crates/kennels), etc. Once we start down the slippery slope of giving rights the same as humans to animals we live with...the AR's will lick their chops because that is the road to not having (forcing our dominion over) pets in our homes.