My point is that if the wound was already significant, then how do we know how bad the dog bite was?
After rereading the article, it’s clear that the dog bit her in multiple places, so it sounds like it doesn’t really matter what the wound was, however, if you had a laceration on your hand and then a dog bit you and reopened the laceration, it’s kind of not fair to say that the dog’s bite was so severe because you already had a wound there.
“Save the aggressive dog because he was only gnawing on an existing wound when he attacked a defenseless woman in her nineties.”
Where are you going with this?
Well, the woman walked in the place, and left in a body bag. I think that should sufficiently clarify the damage the dog did, no?
Are you actually serious???
@Demerara_Stables are you reading the same article the rest of us are reading?
Are you suggesting an ambulatory 95 year old person had existing wounds so serious in nature, so deep and significant that the doggo just maybe nuzzled them and boop, she fell over dead and her body sort of just popped open in multiple places?
Is that what you’re ultimately suggesting?
Are you saying that if the woman already had a wound, hopefully healing, and the dog bit her on that wound, reopening it, that it is not the dogs fault the woman died due to the dog bite because she already had a wound?
errrrrrrr ummmmmm, previous wound makes not one bit of difference. Dog bit her. Many times. If there was a wound, it would have been made much worse by dog bite, in the fact that the would was reopened.
Color me confused.
Ah yes, COTH’s collective poor reading comprehension strikes again. For those of you who skipped right over what I said:
I was answering @colorfan, who asked:
So, THEORETICALLY, my explanation was this:
I happen to possess excellent reading comprehension, and you are attempting to defend a DOG that killed a HUMAN BEING, A VERY ELDERLY HUMAN BEING, AT THAT.
Say what you want about COTH, but no one here is stupid and can clearly see you for who you are!
Oh yes I’m such a terrible person because I answered someone’s question with a theoretical situation. 
Give me a break.
No, you are not a terrible person because you answered someone’s question with a theoretical situation.
You are a terrible person for defending a dog that mauled a 95 year old woman to death!
You get no breaks for such behavior!
Where did I defend the dog?
You do seem to shy away from euthanasia on other threads. I mean, why even come up with a theoretical scenario? This is pretty cut and dried.
On another note, I don’t understand how the owner got away with keeping the dog alive. I think the local district attorney should charge them with negligent homicide. It’s enormous negligence to own a dog that you know has dangerous propensities.
That’s why 
I do shy away from euthanasia because I think that everyone is so focused on their animal being the perfect horse/dog/whatever, So they think that killing it or throwing away when it isn’t perfect is the right solution. I think way too many people on this forum jump to euthanasia as the solution when maybe the animal needs more time or different management and could be a perfectly happy, healthy, and safe partner for someone. I’m not at all saying that’s what this dog was because I don’t know this dog but I’m sick as people jumping in here to say just kill it when that is not what needs to happen.
I say this as someone with decades of experience fixing physical and behavioral issues in horses and as an owner of a dog that needs a specific type of management, so much so that I fly someone from another state to dogs sit when I travel.
Not sure how old you are, but I’m willing to bet my 50+ years of experience fixing physical and behavioral issues in horses is greater than yours. Ditto dog experience.
That said, in respect to THIS particular instance, which is what the thread is about, when a human being dies as a result of a dog attack, the dog should be put down then and there. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Right then. No argument. No hoping a better handler can fix the dog. It needs to be killed. We put humans to death for killing other humans. A dog (or any animal) deserves no less.
“So they think that killing it or throwing away when it isn’t perfect is the right solution.” Are you accusing posters here on COTH of this? It’s a seriously flawed accusation. (Trying not to get censored by mods here). No one EVER advocates for “killing it or throwing away” when a dog or horse isn’t perfect. That’s a pretty juvenile take on things. I hope for your sake, that whatever “specific type of management” your dog requires isn’t aggression or viciousness.
If nothing else, this thread has become a fascinating example of cognitive dissonance–you can literally have cut-and-dried evidence of a frail, elderly person who did an animal no harm being mauled to death and some people will still defend the dog.
What is evident is that you expressed zero regard for the woman who died. There’s a disturbing lack of empathy for what she endured. You expressed interest only in her pre existing condition(s).
I didn’t fail to understand what you wrote. I am more taken aback by what you didn’t write.
This.
The world is full of stray dogs in need of decent homes. Plenty of dogs who have never displayed this sort of aggression are euthanized at shelters all over the country every day, simply because there aren’t enough homes for them. On a purely rational practical level, it just makes no sense to engage in legal action to “save” this dangerous dog.
What kind of management is required that no one in your state is qualified to do?
When a dog KILLS a human being, that’s the time to euthanize. There are a lot of great dogs that don’t bite people that deserve loving homes. This dog had one, and still killed someone. There’s “not perfect,” and then there’s downright dangerous and a liability.
Apparently her dog must be so dangerous that only someone from out of state will deal with it.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
