UPDATED (4:27 p.m.)—The Maryland Court of Appeals will not reconsider an April decision in which it ruled that pit bull dogs are"inherently dangerous."
Judge Alan Wilner, in a nine-page decision issued Tuesday, denied the motion for reconsideration with one caveat. (The full decision is attached to this story.)
"That said, having re-read the briefs, relevant portions of the record extract, and the dissent, I am now convinced that, on the record before us, the application of the Court’s holding of strict liability to cross-bred pit bulls was both gratuitous and erroneous," wrote Wilner. "I would grant the motion for reconsideration, in part, to delete any reference to cross-bred pit bulls, so that the Court’s holding would apply only to pit bulls that are not cross-breds."
Left in place is the ruling by the state's highest court that for injuries caused by the dogs.
Aileen Gabbey, executive director of the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, called the decision disappointing except for "the one change that it no longer should include “mixed’ breeds."
"It is still unclear how they are defining a “pure” pit bull," Gabbey wrote in a statement. "This ruling negatively impacts both humans and pets in Maryland. Residents should not have to choose between their home or their beloved family pets. We will continue to urge the specially-formed task force to meet on this issue before the regular Maryland General Assembly session convenes in January."
Tony Solesky, father of a Towson boy who was attacked and severely injured by a pit bull in 2007, applauded the decision.
"I don't see anything in the ruling other than everyone got their day (in court) and then they got some more," said Solesky.
State legislators during a special session that ended last week.
Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller said last week that a standoff with the Maryland House of Delegates over amendments to the proposed law .
The earlier decision was part of a case involving Dominic Solesky, who was 10-years old when he was attacked by a pit bull named Clifford while playing Nerf tag in a Towson alley.
Solesky suffered severe wounds to his leg which the Court of Appeals called "gruesome." The boy underwent five hours of surgery and multiple blood transfusions during a 17-day hospital stay.
You specifically said "the Police do not use any dog other then German Shepards to engage suspects." You did not say Police from the US; is there a reason we should only look at Police from the US? Also, I have proven TWICE with previous links that US Police use the APBT. In addition, the dog in the fourth video is a Malinois or "Belgian Shepherd" and it even says that IN THE VIDEO DESCRIPTION. It is NOT a German Shepherd and, while similar, is NOT the same Breed. Seriously, what ARE you? Stupid? Insane? Or just an Internet Troll out to get people to respond? How could you possibly believe that your responses are even intelligent conversation, let alone support the anti-Pit Bull agenda?
I am very gratified that all of my post are here to be reviiewed as to my position, stance and responses with regard to my grasp of dog breeds. Inherent behavior, Police and governemnt use and deployment of dogs as well as how and why they use each of the breeds including the various strains of Shepards and in what direction agencies are going in their K-9 Corps including toward even less agressive breeds. I would also remind you the case we one in the court requires a higher standard then what you propose are substantiated facts just because a large group promotes them. When you get older I will tell you all about the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus all of who can be googled as well.
I am sure if you do a little research on it you will find out the truth.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/27/14125653-60-year-old-grandmother-killed-by-family-pit-bull?lite
"Earlier this week, police in Burleson, Texas, said a 3-month-old baby boy died after being mauled by the family’s pit bull. The infant apparently was attacked while lying asleep on a bed; he was pronounced dead at a hospital." And i can rest assured the owners said they were such nice dogs and never before gave a clue to what they were capable of. Sad sad sad. Own these dogs at your own risk.
I would not use that as personal fire to start a witch hunt to destroy any dog of the same breed (or had the same genetics).
It was presumptive of me to think that as the pitt bulls teeth tore through grandma's flesh causing unimaginable pain as she exsanguinated right there on the floor, that she regretting having a pet that could literally eat her alive at will.
I didn't in any respect. I posted the story and said at your own risk. No judgement nor accusations. These families felt the exact same way you do about their dogs. A dog to have around a young child or children can be trusted with a year old kitten. Alone. If I cannot trust a dog with another member of our animal family, I will not trust it with a human family member. That is my choice and do not expect any others to be influenced.
Thank you. A new word in my lexicon that I will never use again. Never read it nor heard it used. I do think though that the word is far far too mild to describe the scene as it must have played out. Poor poor granny.
I mention the "witch hunt" because that is what the main article and conversation is about. If you don't want a "witch hunt" and wish to simply be careful about what animals you let your children play with, that's perfectly fine and your prerogative. In fact, I actually agree with you that I wouldn't let my children play with just any animal without proper supervision. Hell, I'm even getting wary about my Jack Russell and my 1-year old son, because the dog is getting bolder in how he plays with the boy... and it's only a matter of time before a bite might happen. If one did happen, I certainly wouldn't start a lawsuit or lobby for legislation against all Jack Russells, even though I've heard of them being a "bitey" breed.
You're finally getting it. Jack Russells bite. Pit bulls kill.
According to the only peer-reviewed research article on the subject of dog bite fatalities, Pit Bulls ("pure" and mixed) killed a total of 76 times across a 19-year period. 76 recorded kills out of how many dogs in existence during that period? Are we to generalize an entire breed over the actions of ~4 dogs a year? That is my problem. Anecdotes and emotions should not drive legislation. Hard facts should be used to support laws and regulations.
Humans kill other humans every day. I guess we should exterminate the human race too. That is the logic I am reading here.
Additionally, one of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War for my Constitutional rights, and I've had a family member in every war since then continuing to uphold them. If you don't like the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, please feel free to catch the next boat back to Greece. I have been assured by my elected officials that this court ruling will overturned in the January session. It's time is limited, as is that of these ignorant judges, who have no business sitting on any court of law.
However, dogs have been a part of American culture since the beginning. Most of our presidents have owned dogs, dating back to George Washington. Dogs have been part our Americans families since the very beginning. I would state rather emphatically that dogs are covered under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Very few dogs owners would disagree with me on that. However, if you disagree and attempt to take my dogs, then you will become intimately acquainted with my Second Amendment rights, to which I was referring in the first place.
If "nationally" means that a Federal appeals court is going to also overturn this ridiculous ruling if the Maryland General Assembly does not get to it first, then you are correct. It is also going in front of a federal appeals court because it does violate the Constitution. But it is not applicable by law on a federal level. I know you have comprehension issues, but please study up on state vs. federal law. No state court has federal jurisdiction, and no state ruling is applicable outside of the state. Of course, a federal court can (and in this case WILL) overturn state law in cases in which state law violates the Constitution. Goodbye Tracey v Solesky. You are a cartoon -- a stupid, silly, little half-wit who is completely convinced of your own self-importance because a little court case with you name on it gave you 15 minutes minutes of fame. Your 15 minutes is up. Nobody cares about an illiterate half wit and his stupid e-book. You case is already gone, for all intensive purposes.
Oh, your family may be nice, but you're not.