Wednesday, July 08, 2009

2 Years For Pit Bull Owner

Brenda Hill, a 68-year-old northside Indianapolis resident, lived in fear of her neighbors' two pit bull dogs. Her fears turned to shocking horror when she was dragged by the two dogs from her front porch and down an alley last January after they broke through a fence. She lost her left leg, is now wheel chair-bound and has endured seven surgeries since the attack. The dogs' owner, Lee Carroll, received a two-year jail sentence yesterday from Marion Superior Court Judge Linda Brown reports the Star's Jon Murray. Carroll had pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of failure to restrain a dangerous dog, causing serious bodily injury.

Most of these cases have not ended in jail time for the irresponsible owners who harbor these dangerous dogs. Hill told Murray she was delightfully surprised Carroll received a jail sentence. Judge Brown reminded the dogs' owner of the propensity of these dogs for violent attacks. "Sir, I think it's very known in our community that a pit bull dog has a propensity (for violence)," Judge Linda Brown told Carroll. "I guarantee that a Chihuahua wouldn't have done that kind of damage to Ms. Hill's ankle."

Hopefully, Judge Brown's decision will give a reason to people who own these or other dangerous dogs to ponder their ownership responsibilities as dog owners.


Sir Hailstone said...

While I personally take issue with painting breeds with a wide brush declaring them all dangerous, such as pits, rotts, dobies, and GSD, I am glad someone has realized the disposition of the canine is many times reflected in its human master and punished the master of this canine. Unfortunately in these cases the canine is given the death penalty. Where's the death penalty for irresponsible canine masters?

I've seen the nicest pits, dobies, and rotts and I've seen some of the meanest mutts too. A lot is their environment and how the master handles the canine.

artfuggins said...

Unfortunately, the Indianapolis Animal Care and Control will adopt out [sell] to anyone who has the money one of their stray pitbulls. Many of these pitbulls have been abused and are agressive. Over the 4th of July, they 'sold' them for $4 even though IACC had over $65 tied up in shots, chips etc.....many times criminals get these dogs to use as bait when they are training their prize pit bulls. It is a shame that Scott Newman is allowing this to happen. I wonder how many that return to our neighborhoods will end up maiming or killing our mothers or children.

indyernie said...

Art you need to get your facts straight.
Animal Control requires that a dog be neutered or spade when adopted.
AC is over crowded with Pits and Pit/Heinz 57's the $4.00 adoptions are a way to adopt out a dog that might not get adopted otherwise and the $4.00 adoptions aren't just for pit bulls.
Bait dogs usually aren't pit bulls they are dogs taken off the street by these thugs.
Your attempt to make this a Scott Newman thing is a sham.
I’ve been at Animal Control when Pits were being taken for their last shot. The dogs knew that something bad was going to happen they had to be dragged through the doors and down the hallways. I witnessed a young lady carrying pit puppies about six weeks old with tears running down her face into the same room that the older dogs had been dragged into. I walked the kennels afterward and realized that about 60% of the dogs there were pits or pit cross breeds. They had about seventy dogs that day. I inquired about adopting a pit pup only to be told that they didn’t adopt out pits. A Peterson policy.
The pits that are adopted now are not aggressive. They have to be neutered. They must be licensed and must go to the Vet regularly and get rabies shots.
Animal Control does do follow-ups I know for a fact because they followed up on the dog that I adopted.

artfuggins said...

Just wait...let's see how many are returned or maim or kill someone...the proof is in the pudding....

Baloo said...

Are you saying you are in favor of a Breed specific law?

If so would you then be in favor of a law that says all people with screen names that start with "A" be killed as well?

Think about it. It is the exact same thing. Punish the individuals not the group.

artfuggins said...

Indyernie, your facts are a little clouded. Mayor Goldsmith and Scott Newman abolished dog licenses in 1997 so they are not licensed when they leave IACC. Secondly,promoters of illegal dog fighting do use pits and mixed breed pits as practice fighting dogs...being able to get one for $4 is a real deal for the criminal element. Baloo, since no mention was made of any legislation, I am just assumignyou are looking for an argument and ignore you remarks. I will remind you that the judge in this case remarked that everyone knows that pit bulls have a propensity for being vicious.

Love_a_bull said...

Say no to BSL!!! Its basically racism, am I right? I know more people who have been bitten by a shitzu or Pekingese than a pit bull. (In fact I don't know anyone who has been attacked by a pit) And why do you assume the pit bulls adopted out by Indy Animal Care and control are going to kill someone? Please educate yourself about the various breeds and don't point fingers. It's not fair to those of us who are responsible pet owners. Have a great day :)

OrdinaryLife said...

I don't think that breed specific laws can be defined as racism, since we are talking about dogs, not people.
As a former canine trainer, I can attest that there are lots of mean poodles, beagles, and even labs out there. But as a general rule of thumb, you shouldn't really trust any dog. Because they are dogs. They are opportunistic and will do whatever works for them in the situation.
Yes, nature has a lot to do with how a dog turns out. The wrong dog in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster, as many people can attest. But what is the right answer to this problem? I believe it is a mix of education about dog ownership and restrictions on breeds. Finding that balance may prove to be difficult.

Baloo said...

Do you follow the City County Council? Councilor Speedy is in favor of breed specific ordinance, so no my question wasn't to start a fight. It was an honest question.

Are you in favor of the same types of laws, which a ordinance is a law, being applied to humans?

I am not a PETA person. I just believe that punishment should not be applied to a group, but to individuals.

In this case the Dogs have been punished (put to sleep), and the owner is basically getting a slap on the wrist for his lack or responsible pet ownership.

I believe the law should allow much harder penalties to the owners for lack of responsible ownership.

indyernie said...

"Indyernie, your facts are a little clouded. Mayor Goldsmith and Scott Newman abolished dog licenses in 1997 so they are not licensed when they leave IACC."
Indianapolis does require that all dogs be licensed and IACC requires rabies shots and the the Vet they issues the tag.

" Secondly,promoters of illegal dog fighting do use pits and mixed breed pits as practice fighting dogs...being able to get one for $4 is a real deal for the criminal element."

A dog fighter will use any dog as a bait dog. However IACC monitors how many dogs that a person adopts.

" I will remind you that the judge in this case remarked that everyone knows that pit bulls have a propensity for being vicious."

So do Chihuahuas and Parrots, do we put them down and not adopt them out also?

"since no mention was made of any legislation, I am just assumignyou are looking for an argument "

If I was looking for a debate I would choose someone brighter and quicker than you.

If you are so informed why don't you spend a few hours walking pit bulls at IACC and take Judge Brown with you. Those dogs are what we make of them as with any dog.

artfuggins said...

Mean Indyernie, I volunteered and contributed to IACC but will not again until the crazies and Doug Ray and Little Adam are gone. I challenge you to find a way to license a dog in Marion County since they were abolished in 1997. The fact tht you still insist they exist shows that you are not up to speed on this issue.

Baloo, before you pick an argument, you need to get your facts straight....Councilor Speedy's ordinance does NOT have any breed specific language in it. It only addresses vicious dogs which as you have pointed out can be of any breed. Please before you spread your hateful venom, get your facts straight.

indyernie said...


Indianapolis requires dog owners to have a Vet give rabies shot to their dogs. The Vet charges for the shot and a tag is issued. The tag is numbered and controlled and by law it MUST be on the dog with a ID tag or the dog must be chipped. The tag is the license.

artfuggins said...

Indyernie, I know I am wasting my time but one more time, you are required to give rabies shots but there is NO requirement or procedure to get a dog license. That was abolished under Mayor Goldsmith. If you wish to call your rabies shot verification, then do so. Your vet gets all of that money. The city does not license dogs.....

artfuggins said...

It is now July 9 and already 27 of the $4 dogs from the Indianapolis Animal Care and Control and every day will bring more back. This doesn't count the dogs that are just being dumped in the community. Another fiasco at Animal Care and Control. Doug Ray must be trying to set a record for screwups.

indyernie said...

Art I didn't say that the city received any of the money I know that the Vet gets the dough.
I stated that the shot and tag were required by Indianapolis...that is a license.

indyernie said...

Webester defines as such..."license 1. formal or LEGAL permission to do something specified 2. a document indicating such permission"

The Tag is the document. The city allows the Vet to issue the tag if the dog had the shot. The city says that ALL dogs must have the shot and a tag to prove it.

It is a license.

artfuggins said...

The state requires the rabies shot and not the city. If you watched the Indianapolis Animal and Control Board meeting on July 8, they spent 30 minutes discussing a proposal that they would like to ask the city council to enact which would require the licensing of dogs which is not currently required. The meeting is repeated frequently so I suggest you watch it and not rely on my word which you wont do anyway.

indyernie said...

Even if it is State Law the city still requires all dogs to have's still a license.