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.