Saturday, November 11, 2006

TRAILER TRASH JOURNALISM

CNN's fall from Grace


When CNN legislative analyst Nancy Grace took viewers on a tour of murder victim Lacey Peterson's home, who would have thought she could sink any lower? And yet, time and time again, she does!

Grace is a former prosecutor, so on behalf of common sense - I must object!

The most accurate thing to spew fron Grace's mouth in this election day show was "this is total BS!" And New York University must be just giving away degrees in Constitutional law because Grace apparently thinks that free speech is reserved only for her. She loves the sound of her own voice so much she will hardly let her guests finish a sentence - let alone make a valid point. What a waste of a perfectly good college education! Perhaps it's Nancy's head that should be examined for rabies...Anyone want to chop it off?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/07/ng.01.html

NANCY GRACE
Dad`s Pitbulls Kill 1-Year-Old
Aired November 7, 2006 - 20:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, a South Carolina community in shock after four pitbulls maul a 1-year-old baby to death, his own father facing murder one charges.And tonight, a firefighter mom disappears, seemingly vanishing into thin air, leaving behind three little children, including a 6-month old left home alone. Could she still be alive? Tonight, we follow the trial.First to South Carolina, pitbulls once again a deadly weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) told us the child was in the bed, sleeping. And he went outside for a very short period of time (INAUDIBLE) And when he returned in the house, the dogs dragged the child to the kitchen floor, and the child (INAUDIBLE) kitchen floor bleeding very badly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us tonight. Pitbulls a deadly weapon? Once again, we hear about a little child mauled to death by a dangerous dog. Out to Court TV`s Jean Casarez. What happened?

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: Well, Nancy, 25-year-old Michael Young (ph) was living with his mother, raising by himself his 22-month-old little boy. They just moved into their brand-new home, and he also brought long his four pitbulls that were living with his mother but always stayed outside. But they stayed inside Saturday night. He went out for about five minutes to talk with his landlord, who was also his boss. He came back in, his little boy was on the kitchen floor, mauled to death.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, did you just see those particular -- those pitbulls right there fighting?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Yes. Pitbulls fight, but...

GRACE: That was a yes/no. Can you imagine leaving a child, a 1-year- old child, with that?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Nancy, you are absolutely right. That was a mistake, but it was a mistake made by a human being. We can`t demonize pitbulls because this father, as much as I sympathize with his grief right now, made some crucial mistakes. He had moved into a new trailer, and yet he let those animals in with his son and left them alone for five minutes. Now, these were animals that were used to being tethered outside, chained outside, which is something that...

GRACE: Do you see that baby? Do you see the baby? The baby is dead. And you`re telling me it`s not the dogs` fault!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I am telling you...

GRACE: OK!~

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... it`s not the dogs` fault.

GRACE: Jean Casarez, have they gotten the doggie death penalty?

CASAREZ: Well, yes, they have, all four dogs. By the way, when investigators walked into the house, the dogs were wagging their tails. They were not attacking. They were very docile. But yes, all four dogs were euthanized, and they`ve been sent for rabies examinations.

GRACE: What do you mean, they`ve been sent? You mean their brains have been sent to be studied, to determine whether they have rabies.

CASAREZ: Yes. I didn`t want to get as graphic, but yes, their heads were cut off and their heads have been taken to be studied for rabies.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He told us that his child was in the bed, sleeping. He went outside for a very short period of time, five to ten minutes, to speak with his new landlord and bossman (ph), and when he returned in the house, the dogs had dragged the child to the kitchen floor, and the child was laying on the kitchen floor, bleeding very badly.I went there prepared to do battle with four vicious pitbulls, using bite sleeves and correction collars. We opened the door and called the dogs to us, and they came with wagging tails and jumping all over us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: There have been a series of cases involving not only pitbulls, presa canarios, various dogs trained to fight, with the reputation of being deadly, one case after the next after the next. What about it, Jane Velez- Mitchell? There have been many, many -- a string of cases likes this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Sure. There`s one in San Francisco, where a mother is accused of child endangerment because her 12-year-old son was mauled by two pitbulls and he had approximately 140 injuries. The common denominator here is that you don`t put children in close proximity to pitbulls. You don`t put a horse in an apartment, a one-bedroom apartment, and then blame it if it knocks something over. You don`t put a bull in a china shop, and you don`t put pitbulls and leave them alone with a child.In this last case, the one that happened Saturday night in South Carolina, this little boy is 25 to 30 pounds. That is the weight of the smallest of the four pitbulls.

GRACE: Well, you know what, Jane Velez-Mitchell? Long story short, there are multiple cases -- and I`m referring specifically to a San Francisco case. The victim was literally an all-American girl. Her name, Diane Whipple. She was a very slight young lady. She was on the American -- all-American lacrosse team. She was minding her own business, coming in from bringing the groceries, leaving her apartment, trying to get in or out the door regarding the groceries. These two dogs, huge presa canario dogs, attack, tear the woman apart, tear the pants off her body, chew her up. They were not being restrained.So what you`re telling me is that you can`t think of a single scenario, after I`ve told you about the Whipple case, where dogs attack?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, I think that we have to be very careful about making sure that these animals are kept in appropriate living situations. All I`m concerned about -- and a lot of animal advocates tonight are concerned about demonizing the entire breed because these animals are either trained to fight or not kept properly, not spayed and neutered. You know, when they`re not neutered, they`re much more aggressive. And in a lot of these cases, they have not. They`ve been mated and they`ve been bred to fight. They have not been cared for properly.

(CROSSTALK)

CASAREZ: ... that case could be differentiated, the Whipple case, from this case, from everything we know, because in the Whipple case, that dog was bred to fight. And many times, pitbulls are bred to fight. From everything we know about the South Carolina case, these dogs were docile. They were quiet. They were house pets. They were not bred to fight.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These dogs were more dangerous than a loaded gun. And I call them like a time bomb because at least with a gun, you have to pull the trigger. But these dogs would go off on their own, over and over and over again, without warning, and that`s what made them so dangerous. And Diane Whipple didn`t get enough warning to get away.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She`s screaming. She`s yelling. She`s hitting at the dog. She`s trying to get -- keep her whole body around Ms. Whipple to protect Ms. Whipple from the jaws of this berserk beast. The dog is pulling at her clothing, even underneath Marjorie, even though she`s under -- even though Ms. Whipple is underneath Marjorie, Ms. Whipple is being bitten on her sides, on her back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: These dogs have just killed a 1-year-old baby boy. Let`s go out to the lawyers, unchaining now Mickey Sherman and Anne Bremner, Mickey Sherman out of the New York jurisdiction, Anne Bremner from the Seattle jurisdiction. So Mickey Sherman, there`s no doubt in my mind that these dogs should have rightly been put down. And I don`t see a problem with the father facing a murder charge.

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, you can`t believe - - you`ll get such an argument from so many people about even killing the dogs. I mean...

GRACE: What about the baby?

(CROSSTALK)

SHERMAN: Did you...

GRACE: Forget the dog, what about the baby?

SHERMAN: Did you hear what Jane said? It`s not the dog`s fault. And let me tell you, her opinion is really echoed...

GRACE: Oh, right! Guns don`t...

SHERMAN: ... by so many people...

GRACE: ... kill, people do!

SHERMAN: Well, no, I`m telling you...

GRACE: Save your breath!

SHERMAN: People would rather see their children be marched off to reform school before their dog gets a criminal record. I`m telling you, people get crazy over dogs and animal rights. And what was Jane`s phrase, which is appropriate, demonization of the breed. People are really concerned about ill treatment of animals, even when they do horrible things.

GRACE: Ill treatment of animals?

SHERMAN: Yes. I`m telling you...

GRACE: Mickey, you know, this is -- I`ve got to say, outrageous -- a 1-year-old baby boy lying in the floor! Did you hear -- you know what? Let`s go out to Dr. Daniel Spitz, forensic pathologist. Dr. Spitz, can you please describe what happened to this little baby, what he lived through before he died. The last thing he saw was a mouthful of fang!

DR. DANIEL SPITZ, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Well, there`s no question that four dogs attacking this child would not be a pretty sight. There would be a tremendous amount of injury. The fangs of these dogs would rapidly penetrate the skin of this child. The major blood vessels are only a short distance underneath the skin, so those blood vessels are going to be penetrated and bleeding is going to be rapid. Certainly, it`s a painful and a traumatizing death.

GRACE: Let`s go back out to the lawyers, Mickey Sherman, Anne Bremner. Let`s talk about statutes. Are you guys familiar with statutes? They`re sprinkled across the country regarding breeds like pitbulls, Anne Bremner.

ANNE BREMNER, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, yes. But Nancy, the thing in a case like this -- in the Whipple case, it was thrown out. That verdict of guilty was thrown out by the judge after the fact. And in this case, you know, you`ve got a dog...

GRACE: I asked you about statutes.

BREMNER: Well, I mean, the bottom line, Nancy, is you`ve got to have some viciousness, some propensity shown, something in advance. It`s foreseeability, Trial 101, Nancy, that you`re not going to get negligent homicide or abuse of a child in a case like this unless there was some knowledge on the part of this particular parent.And you know, with dogs, I defended the Seattle police dogs in a case where they said use of police dogs is deadly force. Ten-week trial, the jurors said, You`re barking up the wrong tree.

GRACE: Mickey, I want to go back to what I asked Anne Bremner regarding statutes. The both of are you dancing all around it!

BREMNER: No, actually...

SHERMAN: No, it`s...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: There are statutes enacted because of dogs just like this!

SHERMAN: There`s broadly stated statutes, basically reckless endangerment. You do anything, any series of events that you set in motion...

GRACE: Right.

SHERMAN: ... that will cause the death or impairment of the morals (ph) or the health of a child. And that`s probably what they would go under here. But the better question, the bigger question, Nancy, is, Do you really need to prosecute this guy? He`s raising his child. His mother -- the mother has deserted the child. He`s raising a 22 -- year-old (SIC). Did he intentionally expect this to happen? Did he have any past...

BREMNER: Right.

SHERMAN: ... knowledge that his dogs were dangerous? He made a mistake, a stupid mistake. But do you think he`s going to learn any bigger lesson if we put him in jail, other than having lost his child in such a horrible way?

GRACE: Well, do you think any criminal will learn a lesson? It`s not all about rehabilitation, Mickey Sherman.

SHERMAN: It`s about deterrence. It`s about deterrence.

GRACE: And it`s about punishment!

SHERMAN: Anybody who is going to have to learn a lesson, have learned a lesson enough instead of having to be prosecuted when their child is dead -- there`s no useful purpose in that, none whatsoever.

GRACE: Out to Mike Brooks, former D.C. cop and former fed. Mike, there have been a number of cases very similar to this one.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE, SERVED ON FBI TERRORISM TASK FORCE: Nancy, I`ve seen the pitbulls both docile and I`ve seen them also in attack mode. And you know, again, it`s the environment they`re put into. One morning, we served a search warrant. We came around. We had animal control with us. There were two pitbulls in the back. We came around with the loops. We went ahead and looped a dog. As I was coming around the back and I was sweeping the backyard with the flashlight on my sub-gun (ph), there was a golden retriever lying dead in the backyard because it had been put in there to use as bait with these dogs.Now, these dogs were raised to fight. It was the owners that raised them this way. And you also see them walking around neighborhoods with big, thick chains around their necks to strengthen their necks for dog fighting.But again, these dogs were not raised to fight. But you know, did he need to have four pitbulls? Why have four pitbulls and one little boy? And he should not have left those children alone. Again -- but I have to agree on certain things. There are no bad dogs, there`s bad owners.

GRACE: OK, Mike, I wouldn`t have a problem leaving a 1-year-old baby boy possibly with four little kittens or with four little turtles or maybe with four little wiener dogs. But four pitbulls?

BROOKS: Nancy...

GRACE: Why would anybody even have four pitbulls in the house?

BROOKS: That`s -- that was exactly what my question I just posed a second ago. But I`ve also...

GRACE: I mean -- no, no!

BROOKS: But I`ve also...

GRACE: It`s about the dog...

BROOKS: ... seen poodles...

GRACE: ... Brooks! It`s about the dog, too!

BROOKS: It is.

GRACE: Kittens don`t attack you and rip your throat out!

BROOKS: But I have seen poodles attack kids in the face and the neck and do serious damage to them, too.

GRACE: OK, wa-wa-wa-wa- wa-wa-wa- wait! Do you have a big, long list of poodle murders? That is total BS! No, laugh all you want to~!

BROOKS: I`m not laughing.

GRACE: But you know, when it happens to somebody that you know or somebody in your neighborhood, when a dog like this breaks through a chainlink fence and attacks someone, when a dog like those two presa canarios leap away from their owner and literally bite a young girl to death, I don`t know -- you need to drink the coffee and wake up, Mike!

BROOKS: No, well, he does need to be charged. It needs to be looked at. There is a death investigation. He could be charged with neglect, with homicide by neglect. There should not -- he should not have left that little boy alone. You know, was he -- was the little boy playing with these dogs and it got a little rough? Because Nancy, the one thing about these dogs...

GRACE: Got a little rough?

BROOKS: Well, that -- we don`t...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa! Wa-wait! I want to see his face, Elizabeth!

BROOKS: Let me finish. Let me finish.

GRACE: I want to see Brooks`s face! They got a little rough.

BROOKS: No...

GRACE: They ate the baby! The baby is dead! They`ve had their heads chopped off, Mike.

BROOKS: What I`m saying is, Nancy, he was probably playing. They were -- the police said there`s one scenario, that possibly he was playing with the dogs. It got a little rough. You know, maybe he poked one of them in the eye. And these kind of dogs, these aren`t the kind of dogs you play like that with. And once it tastes blood...

GRACE: Oh, so you admit that...

BROOKS: Once they...

GRACE: ... apparently, genetically, these type of dogs can be easily angered and attack.

BROOKS: Absolutely. And once they taste blood, that`s it.

GRACE: Well, there`s a fine how-do-you-do. Once they taste blood, that`s it.Joining us from Bamberg, South Carolina, Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. He is with the Bamberg County sheriff`s office. Sir, thank you for being with us. Tell us about what you have observed in this case.

DEP. SHERIFF NORRIS WILLIAMS, BAMBERG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, Nancy, this has been a very hard case for all of us here to deal with, especially dealing with the loss of a 1-year-old child. But it was not a typical pitbull case. We`ve dealt with several pitbull cases here very recently, where the typical pitbull owner is training their dogs to be vicious. This was not the case. We did not know that originally. Once we were told what happened, we just assumed that these dogs were your usual vicious pitbulls. When we approached these dogs, they were far from that. They were every bit of what I would consider a docile house dog.

GRACE: You know, I understand what you`re saying. And believe me, advertisers have clued into that for the last 25 years. If you see a wagging tail on a dog, then suddenly, your heart melts. I just can`t get the picture of this child there on the floor being mauled to death at 1 year old out of my mind.Let`s go out to the lines. Anna in North Carolina. Hi, Anna.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. My question is -- I have a pitbull. I also have a 3-year-old and a 3 -- month-old. Never would I enter another dog into my home because I know what my pitbull would do. And never would I put my children in the same room alone with my pitbull. Why would he have four pitbulls, if they were just house dogs?

GRACE: Can I ask you a question? Because we always grew up having dogs, having more than one dog, cats, everything, but never a dog that was known to attack. I mean, how can a dog have a bad reputation? But guess what? Pitbulls and Rottweilers do have bad reputations. And Anna, were you ever -- I mean, it sounds like you`ve got your condition under control, but are you ever worried about having a pitbull and a baby?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, my 3 -- month-old, he doesn`t go outside. My 3-year-old only goes out with supervision. My pitbull is not on no chain. She`s never been trained to fight. She`s never been around any other dog like that. I do have a neighbor who has two Rottweilers. When she is loose and roams the neighborhood, the Rottweilers do aggress her, and they would fight. They would cause blood. But my dog has never showed any signs of aggression. And I would never take that chance as a parent because my child does come before my dog.

GRACE: Back out to Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. Sheriff Williams, again, thank you for being with us. I know you`re in a tough spot. Have you ever actually seen a case like this in your jurisdiction?

WILLIAMS: No, ma`am. This was a...

GRACE: So this is a first for you.

WILLIAMS: Yes, ma`am, this was a first for me, and by far one of the worst situations I`ve ever dealt with in seven years of law enforcement.

GRACE: Don`t you have a pitbull?

WILLIAMS: I do. I have a pitbull of my own, and I also have three small children 7, 6 and 4.

GRACE: Why do you have a pitbull?

WILLIAMS: I have a pitbull because we confiscated several pitbulls from a fighting arena, and I brought them home to my kennel because I`m a canine handler and I have several kennels at my home. And my daughter fell in love with this one in particular, so I kept it as a pet. However, it stays outside in an outside kennel.

GRACE: Cities banning pitbulls -- Denver, Toronto. The list goes on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The baby and dogs may have started out playing, then things got rough. Michael Young rushed his son to the emergency room, but the boy died. The baby`s father told investigators he wanted to leave the pitbulls outside but didn`t have enough time to build a post or fence before dark, so he brought the dogs in for the night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I went there prepared to do battle with four vicious pitbulls, using bite sleeves and correction collars. We opened the door and called the dogs to us, and they came with wagging tails and jumping all over us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: A South Carolina community in shock tonight, a father possibly being charged with murder one after his four pitbulls mauled this little child, a 1-year-old baby, to death inside the house.Back out to Deputy Sheriff Norris Williams. Why were the dogs chained up anyway if they had never exhibited behavioral problems?

WILLIAMS: Well, the father told us that he was not a big fan of dogs in the house. He liked the breed of pitbulls, and where he lived previously, he just kept them outside. I don`t know the living conditions. I don`t know if they were tied down or if they were in a kennel, but they were outside dogs.

GRACE: Out to you Marcy Setter. She is here with Dakota Blue. She is the director of education and PR with the Pitbull Rescue Central. With her, Dakota. It`s a 4-year-old American pitbull terrier. Explain to me why pitbulls are often falsely identified, according to you, as attack dogs.

MARCY SETTER, PIT BULL RESCUE CENTRAL: Well, they`re often misidentified because pitbull is not a breed of dog. Pitbull is a term...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa! how big is that head he`s got?

SETTER: Yes, she`s got -- she`s a little -- she`s large. She`s about 67 pounds.

GRACE: Tell me about that jaw. Has she ever gotten anything in her mouth that she wouldn`t let go of?

SETTER: No, not at all.

GRACE: Like an arm?

SETTER: No, not at all. Don`t -- you can`t judge based on incidents like that.

GRACE: So what`s your take on what happened in this case?

SETTER: What`s my take? I read the articles, and I see they were outside dogs. There was mentioning of the dogs being chained. Four of them in a trailer with a child left alone is just not a safe thing.

GRACE: But if it were four kittens or four beagle dogs, we wouldn`t have that problem.

SETTER: Sure, you would. There are reported cases of Dachshunds and Pomeranians fatally killing people, as a matter of fact.

GRACE: Really? Because I couldn`t find...

SETTER: Absolutely.

GRACE: ... a single one on the Internet.

SETTER: Pomeranian, 2002 out of California. A Dachshund out of Kentucky. Absolutely.

GRACE: Let me tell you we`re armed with a computer here on the set.

SETTER: Go ahead. Absolutely look them up. Actually, you can go to my Web site...

GRACE: You`re on, Marcy!

SETTER: ... and see a lot of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: A 1-year-old baby mauled to death by two killing -- four killing machines, pitbulls left alone with a 1-year-old baby boy. Tonight, a South Carolina community reeling.Let`s go straight back out to Dr. Daniel Spitz, forensic pathologist. The cause of death in this case, what is it?SPITZ: Well, it would be pretty simple. Basically, these puncture wounds that these dogs are going to inflict are going to result in a tremendous amount of blood loss, mainly from blood vessels of the neck, the carotid arteries, the jugular veins. So blood loss is going to be cause of this child`s death.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three, strike.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When a pit bull bites, they don`t let go. They`ll rip. The bites can be more serious. They`re very strong dogs. The dog will be more committed to remaining with the bite so that the bite continues instead of latching on or letting go. Sometimes (INAUDIBLE) possibly broken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: The U.K. banned pit bulls in 1991. We now know 21 percent of all attacks on humans are by pit bulls. Take a look at this. Now, I`ve got to tell Marcy, she`s absolutely correct. There was one attack in 2001 by a Pomeranian, one attack in 2002 by a dachshund. She`s absolutely right, both on 6-week-old infants. Back out to Jane Velez-Mitchell. Your opinion is that -- let me get this straight. Forget about the dead baby, it`s the four dogs that were mistreated?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely not. I want to save lives. And the way to save lives is not by banning pit bulls; it`s by banning the breeding of pit bulls. The people who are breeding the pit bulls to fighting machines, those are the ones who are the real culprits here, because they`re sending out all these thousands and thousands of animals. If we ban the breeding of pit bulls and then made sure that the remaining pit bulls were placed in appropriate homes where they were not in close proximity to children, that would be the solution. And that would be fair to the animal, and it would save a lot of lives. And I have to say one thing about this particular case. Those animals were chained up outside the trailer, according to the reports. Chaining an animal is a form of torture. There is a national movement to stop chaining of animals across the country, legislation that`s being pushed. The reason is it`s a form of torture. And then when you let the animal off the chain, there`s all this pent up energy that become aggressiveness. Now, these animals, these four pit bulls, were put into the trailer after being used to being trained. They`re put into a new trailer where they just moved in. They`re disoriented, and they`re let off their chains, and then they`re left alone with a 22-month-old child. That is sheer insanity.

GRACE: Well, to me it`s like leaving a child alone with a machine gun or an Uzi or near an open fire. Take a listen to this statistic. There have been 279 dog attack fatalities -- not just dog attacks, but dog attack fatalities -- in the U.S. in less than 20 years, in only 17 years, 279 dog attack fatalities. Dogs identified as pit bulls responsible for 60 of those attacks, over 20 percent, followed by Rottweilers, responsible for 29 attacks. To Dr. Leslie Austin, psychotherapist, explain.

LESLIE AUSTIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Nancy, when you mix humans and dogs, the psychology is different. Too many people treat their dogs like their kids, and they`re not. You have to understand the behavior. I would never have a pit bull with a young child. In the appropriate circumstances, pit bulls can be great dogs, but you have to know the behavior and the psychology of your animal and treat them appropriately. If a dog commits a bad act, it is 100 percent human trainer error, 100 percent humans have messed up that dog and not understood the nature of the animal.

GRACE: Back to Jean Casarez, Court TV correspondent, Jean, again, the facts as they relate to this particular human attack.

JEAN CASAREZ, COURT TV: Well, I think that`s an important point, because the focus tonight has been brought on pit bulls, but investigators now are looking very narrowly in South Carolina at this particular case. What about these dogs? Did they ever exhibit this behavior before? Why were they chained up previously outside at the other home? What did the owner know about pit bulls? Because, to own a pit bull, you need to have some knowledge about what they are capable of. And if they do smell or sniff blood, that they are very aggressive at point. And what investigators are trying to determine, was this an accident or is this a crime?

GRACE: Let`s go out to the lawyers. Joining us tonight, Mickey Sherman and Anne Bremner. Let`s talk about this possible charge that the father is facing. A South Carolina community totally torn apart. Should this father face murder one charges? Out to you, Mickey Sherman. What are the possible charges?

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Some kind of reckless endangerment kind of charge. But, you know, the best, most effective witness is the sheriff who`s just been on, Sheriff Williams, who is on the scene and explained what his opinion of the dogs, that they were docile.

GRACE: That`s after the attack.

SHERMAN: Well, that`s the law enforcement person there.

GRACE: That`s after the attack.

SHERMAN: He`s also an expert on dogs. He`s got dogs himself.

GRACE: Oh, is your defense some other dude did it?

SHERMAN: No, he`s...

GRACE: Just because they were wagging their tails -- I mean, Ted Bundy smiled in the courtroom. What difference does that make?

SHERMAN: He has dogs himself. He knows the breed. And he saw these dogs after the attack. You know, dogs aren`t exactly going to put on some airs after they do something wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Well, are you saying the dog did not do the attack? I mean, how they acted afterwards has absolutely nothing to do with this.

SHERMAN: I think it has to do with their vicious temper.

GRACE: And even the law is in a lot of jurisdictions, behavior after the fact is inadmissible.

SHERMAN: Bottom line is, it`s a civil case. It`s a lawsuit.

GRACE: Oh, you don`t like that, do you? You don`t like it when I quote the law. You hate that. Ixnay on the aw-lay.

SHERMAN: That`s a cheap trick. That`s a cheap trick.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Right. What about it, Anne Bremner, possible charges?

ANNE BREMNER, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, it`s possible like a negligent homicide, but the fact is, look at the behavior before the fact. You know, there are no bad dogs. I mean, people make bad dogs.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

BREMNER: But, Nancy...

GRACE: The dogs ate a baby.

BREMNER: Here`s the thing, Nancy. It`s like, you know...

GRACE: There are no bad dogs. OK, thanks, Anne.

BREMNER: No, I`m not done yet, though...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ... possible charges.

BREMNER: ... possible charges are probably negligent homicide, but it`s not here because...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, slow it down, high-profile lawyer.

BREMNER: OK, Nancy, I`ll slow it down.

GRACE: OK, you know what? I`ll tell you two the possible charges. All right, you`ve got a possible felony murder.

BREMNER: True.

GRACE: About whether a pit bulls are allowed under these circumstances and a death occurred. You`ve got a possible involuntary manslaughter, illegal act, keeping pit bulls in an illegal manner, also it`s around a child. In my mind, those are the two charges. So let me make it easy for you: Agree or disagree, Mickey Sherman?

SHERMAN: Disagree. What jury is going to find this guy guilty of murder? There`s so no intent in this case.

GRACE: I would go with an involuntary manslaughter.

SHERMAN: And that ain`t going to happen. The man made a mistake, and it was a mistake that was not so foreseeable, according to the expert on the scene.

GRACE: Not foreseeable?

SHERMAN: No.

GRACE: The number-one attack dog in this country is the pit bull. He`s got four locked in the kitchen, people.

SHERMAN: Twenty-seven deaths in the country?

GRACE: No, no, no, no, no, 279. Multiply that by 10, Mick.

SHERMAN: By 10? GRACE: Yes, you said 27. It`s nearly 280.

SHERMAN: The percentage is infinitely small. More people die from choking on pudding.

GRACE: Really?

SHERMAN: I checked the -- no, but it sounds like a pretty good statistic though.

GRACE: OK, I didn`t think so. Let`s go back out to Mike Brooks, former D.C. cop and former fed. Mike, the reality is that this dog was banned in 1991 in the U.K. There are multiple cities that have rules governing pit bulls. And I know all the dog lovers are angry right now. I`m a dog lover. But not dogs that attack children, Mike.

MIKE BROOKS, FORMER D.C. POLICE: I agree, Nancy. I mean, I`m a dog lover. I have dogs. You know, but there`s some dogs that -- you know, at my gym, I go to a gym in Decatur. And there`s this large poodle that runs around in there. And you never know.

GRACE: He`s back on poodles again?

BROOKS: Absolutely. Look, I have -- as a volunteer firemen, I`ve seen what poodles can do. You don`t know how many dog bite reports I`ve taken over the years.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK, you know what? I`m going to come back when you`re ready to get -- leave the poodles alone, and get back on point.

BROOKS: OK, you`re going to talk about Daschunds, Pomeranians, German shepherds?

GRACE: Listen...

BROOKS: Look, I`ve been bitten by police dogs before, Nancy. Let me guess...

GRACE: What do you mean by police dogs, German shepherd dogs?

BROOKS: Yes, German shepherds.

GRACE: You were bitten because?

BROOKS: Well, I happened to reach down and grab a tennis ball while we were doing a bomb sweep of the Davis Cup match, and the dog bit me.

GRACE: And the dog was trained? Was it a trained dog?

BROOKS: Yes, it was. And the owner had to come over and actually grab him by his collar and pull him off my arm.

GRACE: Trained to attack? Trained to attack?

BROOKS: It was actually dual. It was a bomb detection dog and an attack dog, which a lot of dog experts don`t believe that they should be cross-trained like that, either.

GRACE: Let`s go to the lines. Roy in Missouri. Hi, Roy.

CALLER: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: What`s your question, dear?

CALLER: Well, I have two questions. Where exactly -- I mean, how long did this gentleman own these dogs before this happened? And where was he during the 10 minutes the attack occurred?

GRACE: I know that he was outside for the 10 moments that the attack occurred. He was outside. I believe his boss had driven up and he left the baby inside. Jean Casarez, I know that he had had these dogs at a prior home with his mom and the mom told him, "When you go, the dogs go." Do you have any idea how long had he had them?

CASAREZ: Well, I think he had them for a while. Now, the dogs weren`t that old. There were four of them, two males, two females, 2 years old was the oldest one, 10 months was the youngest one, 65 pounds was the largest one, 35 to 40 were the other three.

GRACE: All I can say -- dog lovers get mad at me -- but the death penalty for these four pit bulls.



I'd like to see the death penalty for inflamatory hate mongers masquerading as journalists!
The Nancy Grace show on CNN can be found here, http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/
And her feedback form is here,
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5c.html?24

Thursday, October 26, 2006

THE PROCESS

Every now and then, you uncover a real gem in cyberspace.

I felt like I had found the Hope Diamond when I ran across a blog, posted last year by a former member of the Process Church of the Final Judgement.

It's a timely discovery as THE REVOLUTION begins this weekend. Enjoy!

Best Friends and The Process
by
skepticaltheurgist on Mon 22 Aug 2005 09:49 AM EDT Permanent Link Cosmos
In March 2004, the Rocky Mountain News outed the people running Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, Utah, as The Process in its latest incarnation. The Cone of Silence had been raised, and the Best Friends management felt the need to 'fess up.
A few days later, they added a section to its website, mostly written by Michael Mountain and giving their own version of the past. This is still (as of August 2005) available at http://www.bestfriends.org/aboutus/oldhistory/intro.htm.
Reading it, I had a strange sense of deja vu, from around 1969. In that year, the Sunday Times in England picked up the story of how in the late 1940s L. Ron Hubbard, before starting Dianetics and Scientology, had been involved, magically and financially, with the rocket fuel scientist and noted Thelemite, Jack Parsons. The newspaper had learned how, after some ritual workings to create a magical Moonchild, Hubbard took off with Parsons' girlfriend, a boat they'd all invested in, and a bunch of cash. It was classic Fleet Street muckraking at its salacious best.
Scientology's response was a glorious farrago of a letter to the Sunday Times that began: "Hubbard broke up black magic in America..." Ron, it turned out (according to the Church of Scientology, and quoted in Russell Miller's Bare Faced Messiah) had been sent in by the U.S. government to smash up this dangerous ring of occultists with which Parsons was involved. Naturally, he succeeded magnificently. A stolen girlfriend? No, not at all. "Hubbard rescued a girl they were using."
In sum, the facts were all covered off. It was only the truth that was missing in action.
I recall Michael Mountain (Father Aaron as he was in the 1970s) as a charming man who was often irreverent, and fun to be around. The Best Friends account of the early days shows he still has the ability to charm, even if, as with the C of $ story about Hubbard, the truth and the facts have some distance between them.
It might be unfair to critique details almost 40 years after the events happened, but I feel otherwise. When someone publishes 8,000 words of well-spun baloney, a theurgically (and otherwise) skeptical person like myself can't resist teasing it a little.
The primary fiction is that The Process consisted of a bunch of 1960s counter-cultural seekers, consensually choosing a bohemian, back-to-nature lifestyle. No-one who left England for the Bahamas in 1966, then went on to the Yucatan and Xtul was arguing about it, but the cult-like nature of the group is carefully erased in Mountain's description. Does anyone recall the alliterative headlines in the British press about "The Mindbenders of Mayfair"? Only me, it seems. But then, back before I joined, I collected all this coverage religiously.
And while Robert De Grimston is airily dismissed as "the so-called 'Teacher' of The Process, who had written a number of books and was becoming well known in academic and theological circles," his wife Mary-Ann (see Mary-Ann's photo and Moon Unseen, from June 2005) remains "She Who Must Not Be Named". The Goddess of The Process, its core, is unmentioned in its own published history.
And so it goes on. What, us spread Robert's teachings all over Europe and North America? All of us wear the Cross and the Goat of Mendez on our chests or collars? Go out every day and sell those books by the "so-called Teacher"? Musta been some other guys, or some other so-called Teacher.
Even when I was in The Process (1970-72), the legend around Xtul, "The Place of Miracles" were being embroidered. An abandoned salt factory became a Mayan ruin, for example. Away from their civilised backgrounds, but living still in a soup of heightened consciousness, people had let their inner barriers drop and insights, synchronistic happenings and visions came in plenty. The primal presences or psychological realities called the Gods of The Process made themselves felt.
Beyond that blanket statement, or something like it, I doubt anyone today could give a fair account of the weeks and months spent at Xtul. The three ex-members whom I've interviewed all give varying stories.
Mountain's account adds a fresh spin. As the group came to Xtul, he says, they encountered an old man who "just smiled and said, 'Es para vosotros,' ('It is for you.') And he waved good-bye and continued on down the trail."
Neat - except, as anyone who's learned Spanish finds out, "vosotros" as a second-person plural form is today used nowhere in Latin America, only in Spain itself.
Later, the same man appeared, Mountain says, as The Process were all pulling out.
"'You are leaving,' he said. 'But one day there will be another place for you. It is a beach without an ocean. And the sand is all red. And there are animals. Muchos animales.' "For someone who had never seen red rock canyons and the pink sands that go with them, it was a fair enough description of Angel Canyon, the future home, 20 years later, of Best Friends Animal Society."
Not bad. I just can't find anyone who was at Xtul but left the group who remembers a thing about that 'prophecy'. Zip - or rather, nada.
Mountain's aim, it seems, and that of the other members who wrote this story, is to make it plain that everything before caring for animals was just prologue, or a youthful exuberance. There was, he notes, a Christian ministry phase of helping other people, as indeed there was - after a Christ-and-Satan phase of that, plus a neo-Jewish one, neither of which is mentioned. Animal welfare was the direction in which things were guided.
"The animals were beginning to take over! For many of us, they'd always really been our passion. And when a few of us got together one evening at the ranch to talk about what next and where next, we were all feeling that it was time to devote ourselves to that true passion."
I can't say this is wholly false. Brits (the remaining core group is mostly British) are famously dotty about dogs and animals generally, and She Who Must Not Be Named always had strong feelings about cruelty to animals. What decent human doesn't? But to claim animal welfare was the central concern in that first crazy decade spent as The Process? Or for The Foundation during much of the second? Back then, the End of the World and redemption therefrom overrode all other ideological messages, even if anti-vivisection was a cause we intermittently embraced.
As noted elsewhere on this blog, I had a remarkable experience out of it all, though the most austerely head-messing phase was over when I joined. I'm not the only ex-member with mixed but still fond memories of the community, the sense of inner calm and purpose, and the humour we brought to it all. It's impossible to tell today from the teachings available on-line, but The Process could be fun, and very funny. You needed to accept the premise of the joke - humanity's utter absurdity - but that done, a lot of things about life came to seem less tragic. Perhaps the absence of such candid detachment about the past is what saddens me here.
Best Friends, clearly, is a well-run operation, however much its location miles from any cities compromises its mission. It's an honest endeavour even if it does support the aging remnant of a failed cult. We all gotta live, and the BF operation pulls its own weight.
The roots of my own main beef date back to a visit four years ago, when I briefly reconnected with some of the people I'd known three decades before. What I found was that it was all just like Mountain's story would later turn out to be. The "P word" was not mentioned at all, and almost nobody would share any personal stories or opinions unless they involved saving or helping animals.
Had anyone learned anything spiritually? Well, everyone was much happier now than before. What did people feel it was all about, that wild Gnosticism, that fervent preaching about an End that never came? Well, it had been a long journey for everyone. What wisdom had they all learned? We need to be less cruel to animals. And so on.
I drove out of that beautiful Utah canyon frustrated at feeling stonewalled, with my conception of shallowness permanently redefined. I've not been back. Other ex-Processeans do visit and maintain friendships, but I couldn't be bothered to go again.
Do they, under their neo-Romulan cloaking device, yet have some kind of wisdom, the way we did, or felt we did, 30 years ago? They won't say in Angel Canyon. All who stayed surrendered their personal histories for a distorted collective one.
From Scientology, The Process borrowed the idea that all life consists of games, played as parts of larger collective games, and all ultimately part of a cosmic Game of the Gods. A personal game might be, I am always ill; or I will make $15-million in real-estate then find my kids hate me; or I will struggle for human rights. Regardless of the circumstances or activities involved, they're all about gaining knowledge; about experiencing all things that are possible to experience.
In visiting Kanab, after an hour, I could almost say "Yes, I remember you" in exactly the same, affect-less manner everyone I met used. I had three different people apologise to me spontaneously for what had been done to me in the past - all of them in a slightly beaten-dog tone, and using the same sequence of words. I'd gone in high anticipation, and without any grievance or hurt to air, but I came away with one.
It was all supposed to be about accepting our own reality in its fullness, and thus open to God. The modus operandi today has become a sweet, well-intended deception that seems to have lost what spiritual truth or honesty was once present. Best Friends is, any ex-member can see, not a rejection of the structure of The Process or The Foundation, but a continuation. The sadness I feel is that while the externals have changed, the core game is the same as it ever was: a bunch of people believing they are an Elect of some kind, grouped around an aging avatar, very aware of human motivations yet hopelesly blind about their own. Saving animals is the latest version of this, and a nice one, but at bottom, it's just another game.
The animals, I've heard it said, are a major comfort for the dozen or so remaining Processeans (most people at Kanab were never involved in the original group). Animals' natural dignity and unaffected joy are easily superior to the human animal's meaner nature. For someone who has spent 40 years tied to a cult, that must be reassuring. Personally, I'm grateful, regardless of whatever regrets and disappointments I've accumulated, that I can tell my own story, and don't have to follow a cultic party line nor distort my own memories to comply with one.
I wish the Kanabians were able to do that. Instead, they still feel compelled to diss their former associate, Robert, like Stalinists dumping on a Trostky, and to pretend that so many years of their earlier lives were a mere bohemian misadventure. It shows that, rather than seeing and accepting those years clearly, and truly moving on, they are endlessly perpetuating them.
Oh well. The dogs and cats, at least, clearly appreciate it. Give 'em that.


http://skepticaltheurgist.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/22/1159059.html


Monday, October 23, 2006

IS TEXAS GETTING KINKY?


Musician Kinky Friedman for governor of Texas?

"WHY THE HELL NOT"

No that's not a political endorsement, but a quote from his website. So is this:

"...the last independent governor of Texas was Sam Houston. The next will be Kinky Friedman."

God bless Texas! Good 'ole independent Texas. Kinky Friedman promises "Independence from politics-as-usual." Given his campaign commercials, I'd say he delivers.

I did take time to read his position on the issues at: http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/issues/
and I like what he's got to say, especially his Ten reasons to elect...But I have to say that what caught my eye was the TV commercial with the dog called "Cowboy Way". http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/multimedia/_video/CowboyWay/

I'm guess I'm starting to feel Kinky, 'cause the rhetoric is as refreshing as a cold beer on a hot Texas day in a dry county, but to be perfectly honest...you had me at "pit bull"!

Sunday, October 22, 2006

THE REVOLUTION


Let’s do some basic math. Over 300,000,000 people in the United States + over 60 million dogs (including roughly eight million “pit bulls”) = only about 20 annual fatalities. And yet, we are going to be treated this week to a “Summit on Dangerous Dogs” sponsored by a “Kindness Revolution” backed with animal rights money and line up of presenters that includes a former presidential campaign manager, a breed ban promoting Dog Warden, a police officer/investigative reporter, an attorney, a lobbyist, and – if she’s not in jail - an alleged dog thief! I don’t see a single board certified dog behaviorist on the panel. Something in this equation just doesn’t add up.

For some strange reason, when I think of a revolution, I hear the marching of jack-booted Storm Troopers high stepping all over my civil rights. I don’t care how beautifully you wrap the package, there’s nothing kind about that.

The Best Friends Animal Society, a multi million dollar non profit with a scary past and a questionable future has apparently decided to enter the political arena.

“Who are these Christians anyway? Throw them to the lions!”

Those in the know are already sharpening their fangs.


Briefly summarized, Best Friends has published in their Sept./Oct. 2006 magazine that:

1) Because of breeding, some dogs “have a higher percentage of bad than do most breeds.
2) Dog “attacks are by no means all from pit bulls, but by dogs of many breeds who by now have been inbred with aggressive tendencies.
3) “Beloved pets” will “suddenly and inexplicably turn on their people”.
4) The root cause of dangerous dogs is that “certain people are deliberately breeding aggressive tendencies into dogs”.
5) “the rest of us…are victims

Wow! I haven’t heard propaganda like that since the Holocaust!!!


Don’t worry…Best Friends has a “three-point plan”. It includes:

1) Acknowledging “that there are dangerous breeds, and that aggressive tendencies have now been bred into their genes”.
2) “legislation making it illegal to breed aggression into dogs”
3) Going “after the people who are breeding aggressive dogs, rather than simply the dogs themselves”.

“This summit seeks to build momentum for a national movement...to protect innocent dogs from people” and their modeling their solution on their own interpretation of excerpts from breeding restriction laws enacted by THE GERMAN ANIMAL WELFARE ACT of 1998, and THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PET ANIMALS IN STRAUSSBORG GERMANY of 1987.

Zig heil!

THE REVOLUTION is upon us.


Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Congratulations to a real "Hero"


Voting is closed and yesterdays Animal Planet poll numbers indicate that Mona Rutger has won their "Hero of the Year" ward - by a landslide. Even better, she easily defeated the AR aligned (and maligned) anti-tether/anti-penn/pro-trespassing alleged dog thief!!!

"The winner will receive a $10,000 donation made to the animal welfare organization of the winner's choice and a 7-day/6-night trip for 2 to Hawaii!". Enjoy it Mona. You deserve it!

It seems the anti-tether minions are not taking the loss well. I hope they didn't have any plans to use that money for liberating more dogs from their legal owners. Too bad. So sad. I Guess Dog Owners Deserve Better, after all...

http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/hero_of_the_year/nominees/mona.html

Meet Mona Rutger
Nominated by Dorothy Flounders.
Mona Rutger, together with her husband Bill, has owned and operated a volunteer wildlife rehabilitation and nature education center, Back to the Wild, for 15 years in Castalia, Ohio. The center rescues over 2,000 injured or abandoned wild animals each year, and is able to return over 60 percent of them back into the wild. A nonprofit with no funding, the center relies on contributions by individuals and organizations to cover the cost of caring for the constant influx of "wildings." Mona consistently puts in long hours, especially while tending to the many baby birds and animals that require constant care. She says, "It's very demanding, but it's my passion." Her other passion is teaching future generations the great need to preserve and protect our natural world. She presents educational programs to over 50,000 students and members of youth groups and adult organizations each year, traveling all around the state as well as conducting programs and tours at the center several times a week. Fifteen Eagle Scout projects have been completed at the center by local youth. Three of Mona's young assistants have been inspired to attend veterinary school because of their work at Back to the Wild. Two are practicing veterinarians and the third will graduate soon. At least one other young volunteer has stated that she also plans to become a veterinarian. Mona takes part in volunteer studies with veterinarians on such diseases as West Nile virus and avian flu, and they are using the data gathered in national and international research.

Monday, October 09, 2006

A gun-toting, red-meat-eating, dog-loving Democrat

"It's a good time to be a gun-toting, red-meat-eating, dog-loving Democrat."
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003294510_spokanerep08m.html

Glad to hear it Brian! Because it seems to be a bad time to be an AR lovin', scandal plagued Republican. Just ask Rick Santorum. And will the Governator be feelin' the heat from the Kalifornia sunburn?

This is a non partisan, equal opportunity, idiot bashing forum. So I have to ask...where do the Libertarian and Independent candidates currently stand? Not with Bill Maher, I hope.

From Webster's Dictionary:
mod'erate: a. not going to extremes, not excessive. medium.
n. person of moderate views
v.t. and i. make or become less violent or excessive

So when did "moderate" become a political insult? It seems like a good thing to me.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

What's the trip with Trippi?

Democratic spinmaster Joe Trippi has aligned himself with the vegan fascist prostitutes. How much tax exempt money is multi million dollar Best Friends Animal Society paying him for services rendered? Is he courting them to rally votes? Is he foolish enough to believe that Democratics only eat tofu and wear pleather? Does the "right" hand know what the "left" hand is doing?

I wonder if Trippi will benefit the animal rights agenda the way he helped Howard Dean. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for ya" Joe?

And why does Trippi suddenly consider him an expert on "dangerous dogs"? Because he's speaking at the Best Friends "Dangerous Dogs Summit" in Lakewood CO later this month. He's going to provide "tools" for the dog Nazis to use grass roots action for the legislative agenda that targets our Constitutional rights.

How stupid do you think animal lovers are Joe? We love them enough to vote animal rights friendly politicians out of office, and cross party lines to do it.

How stupid do you think Democrats are? I'll bet they love their animals enough to keep them. Maybe we should ask all those Democrats running for office how they feel about becoming "guardians" instead of dog owners? Last time I checked, the Democrats I know all eat meat, wear leather and OWN animals!

Heads up Joe, we're smart enough to keep a watchfull eye on your every move...

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Welcome canine freedom fighters!

Welcome vegan fascist haters!

Welcome to One Nation Under Dog.

Got a hot lead that needs to be followed up on? This is the place to drop a line. I will put the verified tips in the right hands. I believe that public information should be made VERY public. All the dirt that's fit to dish.

No censoring. I promise. Everyone has the Constitutional right to make an ass of themselves. And the right to animals as property, the right to commerce with same, the right to due process, the freedom from warrantless search and seizure...

My agenda? The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the ugly truth, so help me DOG!