1.) this is only one side of the story
2.) the landscaper was severely injured with multiple deep bites
3.) normally when workers are told to be someplace, especially
landscapers because they could not finish work due to weather, they
usually get there as early as possible.
3.) the owners are wealthy and well-connected and we are only hearing
their side of the story which is all about the poor picked on dog- a
family pet.
This was an allegedly obedience trained dog who led a
pack in an attack. The hooey in the press about poor Congo protecting
his owner is part of a carefully orchestrated pr campaign that came
out after the dog was ordered put down. The investigating animal
control officer did not find any evidence that the dog was protecting
his owner and if he had bee, continuing to bite when told not to,
when the victim is curled in a fetal position on the ground is not
just protection- it's aggression.
The testimony was quite different when it was under oath but as often
happens the dog is now a victim rather than the man who was injured
so badly he may not be able to work again.
Wow. Yes there do seem to be multiple versions of the story,
originating from both sides. but there are quite a few important facts
that people choose to ignore even tho they've been published in almost
every article. Like the fact that the landscaping company is owned by
Mr. James' BROTHER, and they were asked to be there early to complete
work that wasn't finished the day before due to the weather. That the
landscapers walked into the yard WITH Mrs. James, and she was unable
to control the dogs. That the puppies were 6 months old at the time
of the incident and not little baby puppies that most people assume.
Sorry, 2 adult shepherds and their 4 6 month old puppies mauling a
person, that's a vicious pack.
In addition, because none of the dog's had been vaccinated the
victim had to spend days in the hospital after surgery and then had
to undergo a series of rabies shots.
The owner was offered a plea to a lesser charge which would not have
declared the dog vicious under the municpality's dangerous/vicious
dog ordinance. Once he refused and the case went to court, the judge
had no choice but to follow the law and order the dog's death once
found guilty because the dog had severely bitten. The extent of the
injuries were a next to worst case on I n Dunbar's graded bite scale.
Worst is death. The bites were multiple, deep, with damage to tissue
and muscle and loss of blood. The dog could not be called off by his
owner and the attack went on for some three minutes or so. The victim
required some three hours of surgery and pictures of the scars are
pretty graphic and awful. These were not scratches.
It's a little more complicated than that.....they were asked to wait,
and they waited 15 minutes. At around 15 minutes the wife came home,
she'd been out looking for one of the "puppies" that had broken thru
the invisible fence and gone wandering. When the wife pulled up the
men got out of their vehicle and went with her into the yard. The 5
dogs that were loose in the yard came running to see Mrs. James and
things got out of hand from there. The men did NOT wander onto the
property, and Mrs. James was unable to control her dogs.