rottie kill a man

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:26 am

Crikey, awful lots of this in the news at present...Terrible way to die...

Wonder why on earth it turned on its owner?:(

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:26 am

Its a pity that we will never know the dogs side of the story .

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:29 am

ThePheasant;766148 wrote: Its a pity that we will never know the dogs side of the story .

No sympathy at all ?

Strange reaction.......

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:33 am

Bruv;766150 wrote: No sympathy at all ?

Strange reaction.......

I'll just let that comment go ... maybe others will see the point I'm making :rolleyes:

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:34 am

ThePheasant;766152 wrote: I'll just let that comment go ... maybe others will see the I'm making :rolleyes:

course we can babes:):-6

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:36 am

ThePheasant;766152 wrote: I'll just let that comment go ... maybe others will see the I'm making :rolleyes:
With you 100% Fuzz.....good owners dont get turned on like that and yes I DO know what Im talking about.I have always had dogs.....at the moment I have 8.Without knowing the full SP of this story I cant comment on the way this man treated this dog so Pheasy good on you for that comment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:37 am

I see the point your making.

It would be nice to preface it with sympathy for a fellow human.....at least.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:41 am

I also know the area VERY WELL................Im saying no more.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:43 am

Bruv;766160 wrote: I see the ...... your making.

It would be nice to preface it with sympathy for a fellow human.....at least.

I filled in blanks, couldn't you? - jeez:rolleyes:

I'll save my sympathies until I hear the full story ... right now none of the reports I have found have given his name.

And as you don't know me ..... please don't make assumptions about me being an unsympathetic person .... thanks

littlemissgiggle · Post by **littlemissgiggle** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:21 am

wow this is a sad story on both sides,

and as pheasy says neither are here to fend for them selfs,

the dog must of turned for a reason, maybe he was been beaten its self :-1

so many ways you can look at it but at the end result 2 soles have died.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:34 am

ThePheasant;766169 wrote: I filled in blanks, couldn't you? - jeez:rolleyes:

I'll save my sympathies until I hear the full story ... right now none of the reports I have found have given his name.

And as you don't know me ..... please don't make assumptions about me being an unsympathetic person .... thanks

I filled in my blanks after seeing you filled in your blanks :rolleyes:

But on reprising the thread ....some have added content too.

A man lies dead, ripped apart by an animal, I care not about the circumstances.

I sympathise with his nearest and dearest.....and await news of the mans character.

I make no assumptions.......

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:37 am

Bruv;766213 wrote: I filled in my blanks after seeing you filled in your blanks :rolleyes:

But on reprising the thread ....some have added content too.

A man lies dead, ripped apart by an animal, I care not about the circumstances.

I sympathise with his nearest and dearest.....and await news of the mans character.

I make no assumptions.......Why am I not surprised.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:38 am

Bruv;766150 wrote: No sympathy at all ?

Strange reaction.......

Bruv;766213 wrote: I filled in my blanks after seeing you filled in your blanks :rolleyes:

But on reprising the thread ....some have added content too.

A man lies dead, ripped apart by an animal, I care not about the circumstances.

I sympathise with his nearest and dearest.....and await news of the mans character.

I make no assumptions.......

I beg to differ...You assumed Pheasy had NO sympathy at all and assumed she replied in a strange reaction.

How do you know that she had no sympathy, just because she didnt put it in a post doesnt mean she didnt have any....To make that remark is an ASSUMPTION on your behalf bruv:-6

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:47 am

Bruv;766213 wrote: I filled in my blanks after seeing you filled in your blanks :rolleyes:

But on reprising the thread ....some have added content too.

A man lies dead, ripped apart by an animal, I care not about the circumstances.

I sympathise with his nearest and dearest.....and await news of the mans character.

I make no assumptions.......

Well I do. I would rather wait for more details.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:53 am

Bruv;766213 wrote: I filled in my blanks after seeing you filled in your blanks :rolleyes:

But on reprising the thread ....some have added content too.

A man lies dead, ripped apart by an animal, I care not about the circumstances.

I sympathise with his nearest and dearest.....and await news of the mans character.

I make no assumptions.......

Too late I already quoted your nit-picking

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:59 am

ThePheasant;766232 wrote: Too late I already quoted your nit-picking

:wah:

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:25 am

This latest report gives more detail, very sad from so many angles

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... ICL=TOPART

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 am

Chezzie;766147 wrote: Crikey, awful lots of this in the news at present...Terrible way to die...

Wonder why on earth it turned on its owner?:(

I can answer that... because that owner hadn't established his

alpha status.

It's a terrible way to die, yes, and before I get accused of being

unsympathetic let me say I feel for the man's family.

You can keep posting these news stories but as long as I'm able

I will still reply... none of the "stories" of the thousands or hundreds

of thousands of rotties the world over are told... the stories of the

rotties who live peacefully and die at a ripe old age never having

harmed anyone.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:34 am

ThePheasant;766243 wrote: This latest report gives more detail, very sad from so many angles

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... OPARTAgain i have to agree with you Fuzz and thankyou for showing us that.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:05 pm

Ontario has already banned pit bulls and may move on to ban rottweilers.

It just plain doesn't matter if it's the owner's fault or not. Something must be done to stop the frequency of the reports. That doesn't mean that the breed should be extinguished. I recently spoke with someone who wants a Rottweiler and she thinks she can handle it because she watches the Dog Whisperer. She lives in a small place, works two jobs, won't be able to exercise the animal properly and didn't have connections to other dog owners to socialize it properly. She wants a big dog "for protection" but it was obvious she thought it would be "cool" to own a Rottie.

People should be prevented from owning large, tempermental breeds unless they have completed a training course.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:12 pm

I Agree

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:20 pm

I agree with both Valerie and Koan. The thing that confuses me here, is the fact that it now appears that the man has had the dog for 10 years

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:50 pm

He had the dog from a pup, treated it like part of the family and looked after it well.

Onlookers say the man collapsed and at first the dog licked and pawed him but when he didnt get up, it got agitated so much it chewed and bit him to death.

Never heard of a case like this before, its sad but also alarming.

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:02 pm

the recent case wherebye a child was attacked by a rottie brought the experts to tv to try and explain the behavour of dogs that suddenly "turn"first they said,we should realise to the dogs we are part of a pack(that pack may only be 2 but a pack nonethe less)now in dog world when a pack member behave extremly different to its usual self it loses its identity,the others thinks its a non pack member.when this man didnt respond as he always did to the dogs licking,he bacame some other dog,also the dog probably bit him in the first istance to wake him up,when he didnt he lost his identity and became alien to the packand was attacked.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:08 pm

hoxtonchris;766328 wrote: the recent case wherebye a child was attacked by a rottie brought the experts to tv to try and explain the behavour of dogs that suddenly "turn"first they said,we should realise to the dogs we are part of a pack(that pack may only be 2 but a pack nonethe less)now in dog world when a pack member behave extremly different to its usual self it loses its identity,the others thinks its a non pack member.when this man didnt respond as he always did to the dogs licking,he bacame some other dog,also the dog probably bit him in the first istance to wake him up,when he didnt he lost his identity and became alien to the packand was attacked.

Thanks Chris, that totally makes sense as to how that dog behaving in this circumstance. He didnt just turn on his owner, he tried and tried to get him to get up and got more and more agitated because his owner didnt respond. I think this case is very sad as I personally dont think that dog would ever of harmed his owner under normal circumstances and now the two are dead.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:12 pm

Chezzie;766333 wrote: Thanks Chris, that totally makes sense as to how that dog behaving in this circumstance. He didnt just turn on his owner, he tried and tried to get him to get up and got more and more agitated because his owner didnt respond. I think this case is very sad as I personally dont think that dog would ever of harmed his owner under normal circumstances and now the two are dead.

It is very very sad. Love gone horribly wrong

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:32 pm

i agree chezie and pheasant,its a very sad day,it shows how loving and caring for our pets is not always enough ,we should try to learn about their world ,after all we not only invite them into ours but expect them to know our ways.we know for instance that we can have a pet dog for years that shows us absolute devotion ,but try taking food from his mouth!!wooooo

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:05 pm

The first dog we ever had, a mongrel (but looked like a pedigree bearded collie), was very bright and I was able to train him all the basic commands within four weeks (all of them, I might add, also with just hand signals and no voice!). He was a brilliant dog, he even allowed me to interupt his meal and remove his dish sometimes (still with food in it), with no fuss - just acceptance. However, when he removed one log from our pile that was ready for our open winter fire, and started chewing it, he would not let anybody near him to try to retrieve the log. We had to wait till he came back in the house from the garden before it could be replaced on the pile. He also allowed me to pick his beef bone up and put it down in another place, with no argument whatsoever. He would allow us to do anything with anything that was 'his' except the log that he had adopted. He was 16 years old when he died.

This is just like our 'Fred' except he was a gorgeous honey colour all over !

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:15 pm

Reminds me of my Bobby.That dog did make me laugh.When I got the shopping I would take it indoors and gawd help any dog or human who went near those bags.He just sat beside that shopping and would not move until I sorted it out:wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:27 pm

This is why I will never own a dog that can out eat and out crap me, let alone tear my face off if it has a mind too..

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:32 pm

Sorry Jimbo, going slightly off topic there !

But I think that Rottie became confused, because the 'pack leader' had gone down, and didn't get up, even after he'd licked the man, so he panicked - he lost his leader.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:21 pm

How very sad.

A couple of other members have offered some great explanations as to the why this could happen. And I have to agree - when the owner didn't respond to the dog's initial attempt to wake him up, the dog tried harder and harder - not understanding that he was hurting instead of helping.

With all of the uproar about rottweiler attacks in the UK lately - is it a suprise this made front page news? If a labrador had done this, would it have? I doubt it.

Before people jump on the "breed bann bandwagon" they should do some research. In an average year - less then 100 people are killed by dog attacks (and those would involve ANY breed of dog). Figure out the average of people attacked against the number of dogs of the "offending" breeds registered with the national Kennel Club and I am sure that you will find that less then 1% of dogs are involved. That is like saying that all people with blue eyes should be locked up because they are more likely to commit a crime. Sorry - doesn't make any sense to me.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:44 am

koan;766254 wrote: Ontario has already banned pit bulls and may move on to ban rottweilers.

It just plain doesn't matter if it's the owner's fault or not. Something must be done to stop the frequency of the reports. That doesn't mean that the breed should be extinguished. I recently spoke with someone who wants a Rottweiler and she thinks she can handle it because she watches the Dog Whisperer. She lives in a small place, works two jobs, won't be able to exercise the animal properly and didn't have connections to other dog owners to socialize it properly. She wants a big dog "for protection" but it was obvious she thought it would be "cool" to own a Rottie.

People should be prevented from owning large, tempermental breeds unless they have completed a training course.

I have owned Rotties for the last 15 odd years and having a 'small place' has nothing to do with it . My first Rott (a female ) lived quite happily with myself and my daughter in a one bedroom flat for years and she didn't turn into a killing machine . Rotties actually only need about twenty minutes exercise twice a day and the only real talent needed it the ability to ontrol the animal with your voice , a well trained dog will respond to your commands and both my Rotts did .

My last Rott Jake weighed nearly 12 stone and thats a lot of dog on the end of a lead but not once did he ever show any aggression or give us one single problem. I had that dog from Six weeks old and my daughter did everything to that dog that she did her dolls.... she sat on him, rode on top of him dressed him up put sunglasses on him . I'm a child minder so i've had many a young child in the house . Not once even when he was really ill did he ever bite anyone or attempt to bite anyone ...infact he hated people fighting ....if myself and my other half were playfighting he would try to get in the middle of us to stop us.

Rotties are not devil dogs, they are loyal and stubbon but they are beautiful dogs and unless you've owned one a person can't know what their really like .:-5

You know it's amazing just how many people can't tell a Rottie from a Doberman or even a Boxer, getting that right could be a start .

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:59 am

One of the friendliest dogs are rottweilers. The problem is they are so powerful if they do attack it's one of the few breeds that would be difficult to stop.

Maybe some kind of licensing systen for breeds like the rottweiler. The trouble is they appeal to the kind of mentality that want a big dog because they think it makes them look tough not because they want a dog or really appreciate it is a living creature not a robot. I live near a dog's trust centre and there are several rottweiler & rottweiler crosses around. The trust vets the owner to make sure they can cope with a dog before they let them go.

Some of the rescue are dogs are vicious because of the way they have been treated. oftentimes towards males or children because someone tormented them as a pup and they remember.

Same with bull terriers, they appeal to the macho moron but they are powerful dogs and do a lot of damage if they bite.-how often have you seen one often these morons swaggering along behind his dog as it drags him down the street.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:21 pm

Just thought I would update this story - not that anyone who believes the media propaganda will really care - the coroner's report shows that Mr. Rehill died of natural causes.

http://http://www.dogmagazine.net/archi ... edia-hype/

Wonder if this little tidbit of information will make the front page of the papers?

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:24 pm

LilacDragon;773575 wrote: Just thought I would update this story - not that anyone who believes the media propaganda will really care - the coroner's report shows that Mr. Rehill died of natural causes.

http://http://www.dogmagazine.net/archi ... edia-hype/

Wonder if this little tidbit of information will make the front page of the papers?

Lilac I can't load the page?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:32 pm

Hmmmm.

Try this.

http://http://www.dogmagazine.net/archi ... edia-hype/

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:34 pm

Well, I just don't know. I was able to link to it from another site.

Give me a second - I will cut and paste the story.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:35 pm

Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 7/02 Posted Under: Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Columns, Dangerous Dogs, Dog News

Last week I made a short appeal to the media to show a little more ‘care’ when ‘reporting’ on dog attacks.

The appeal was in relation not just to the tragic death of pensioner Jim Rehill who died on January 28th.

It was motivated by the sneaking suspicion that it was very possible, maybe even probable, that Mr Rehill was not - as was almost universally reported at the time - ‘killed in a savage attack by his own dog’ (a Rottweiler).

Some of the headlines from January 28th would leave you in no doubt as to how Mr Rehill died:

Grandfather Killed by rottweiler On walk

Rottweiler ‘Chews Master’s Face Off’

Owner killed by rottweiller

Man mauled to death by his own Rottweiler

Dog kills owner in horror attack

Dog brutally mauls owner in London

Rottweiler attacks owner on daily walk

Yesterday (a little over a week after Mr Rehill’s death) the small, not entirely insignificant matter of coroner’s report revealed that Mr Rehill’s death has been recorded as natural causes. No inquest necessary. It is confirmation of what was stated by some eye witnesses who saw the incident take place.

In between telling reporters that “dogs like rottweilers should not be allowed out in public, one witness, Aziz Rahman, let slip that “(the) dog was over him, licking and biting him.

Yes, I highlighted the word licking. Why? Because I’ve seen dog attacks, I’ve seen dogs fight, I’ve seen lots of things dogs do when they are being ’savage’. Licking is quite an unusual thing for them to be doing in the middle of a frenzied ‘horror attack’. Unusual, not impossible though. Anyway, let us move on.

Another witness saw what happened. He was a little clearer as to what he believed he’d observed.

Lee Hanson who works at a nearby taxi firm insisted the dog was trying to help the man.

Mr Hanson said: “The man was face down and the dog was trying to wake him up. “The dog wasn’t attacking him at all¦ it was his own dog. It was banging his head, trying to wake him up.

Another comment recorded in the aftermath of the death:

A neighbour of the dead man, Bhupendra Karia, 30, said: “He loved that dog. He’d had him for at least 10 years, since he was a puppy and he never had any problems with it being aggressive.

You may or may not be surprised to know who’s accout of what happened got the most press coverage. Have a guess. Was it¦.

Mr Rahman’s observation that the victim was: “like a piece of meat going on to add “My wife could not believe it. She got frightened. Now she’s thinking it’s fairly scary to go to the local shops on her own

or, for balance, do you think Mr Hanson’s pretty clear cut: “the dog was not attacking him comment got equal column inches?

In case you’re still wondering, Mr Hanson was quoted in the Sun’s ‘report’. Here’s what they published from him:

Cab firm boss Lee Hanson, 41, said: “I saw a man face down with this dog standing over him.

It was grabbing his neck and lifting his head then banging it down really hard.

It reads a little differently, don’t you think, when the words “the dog was not attacking him are completely dropped from the article and the words slammed, dragged and smashed are highlighted in their coverage?

They (the Sun), it goes without saying, used an image of a wild eyed, frightening looking Rottweiler in full aggression mode to highlight the horror of the story. Not Mr Rehill’s dog you understand. No, just a generic Rottweiler, mouth agape, snarling and ready to eat you, your children and your children’s children.

The Sun is not alone in its reporting of this incident.

A rottweiler chewed off its owner’s fingers and nose as it savaged him to death in the street, shocked eye witnesses said today.

The powerful beast repeatedly battered the pensioner’s skull against the pavement and ripped and chewed at his face, it was claimed.

Reports Big News Day

The Press Association claimed:

A pensioner was “dragged like a doll through the street in a fatal attack by his dog.

Witnessed looked on in horror as railway engineer James Rehill, 78, was savaged by his rottweiler in Newham, east London.

Residents armed with baseball bats desperately tried to free Mr Rehill as the dog inflicted horrific injuries to his face and head. It was only when police officers arrived and discharged six fire extinguishers that the dog was distracted and released its owner.

And the most common line taking by the media is typified by the Mirror’s assertion that:

Grandad James Rehill was mauled to death when his pet Rottweiler suddenly turned on him during their morning walk.

We (K9 Magazine) elected not to report on this particular incident at the time. Not, you must understand, because we don’t report on dog attacks - no, in fact we have an entire website dedicated to rounding up coverage of dog attacks - and not because we are actively involved in trying to highlight the incredibly misguided, weak, poor thought out and unsuccessful dog legislation Britain is saddled with (and, incidentally, is trying to saddle us with more of) - no, our decision not to report on this incident until the post mortem was conducted was based on what we, and a number of other people who have a shred of understanding about dogs, felt were some loose ends in this sorry story.

Loose ends like, oh I don’t know, Mr Hanson’s protestation that “the dog was not attacking him - even the excitable Mr Rahman gave us cause for concern in between declaring his opposition to Rottweilers being allowed out in public when he revealed the dog was “licking his face. And finally, and this is the biggest clue of all, this is the one that really kinda tipped the scale in favour of us deciding to wait for the facts to come out before jumping the gun, was our understanding that DOGS WHO’VE LIVED WITH THEIR OWNER FOR 10 YEARS SINCE BEING A PUPPY AND HAVE NEVER SHOWN ANY SIGNS OF EVER BEING AGGRESSIVE IN THE ENTIRE LIVES DO NOT SUDDENLY DECIDE TO KILL THEIR OWNERS WHEN OUT ON THEIR DAILY WALKS!!! (emphasis added, tabloid style)

So today, when the facts have been revealed that Mr Rehill was not killed by his dog. When the facts tend to support witness reports that claimed the dog was merely panicking in desperation at not knowing what to do as its owner lay unconscious on the floor. When the facts tend to support our own theory that it was very possible a dog who was standing over its stricken master whilst a crowd gathered with ‘baseball bats’ and fire extinguishers and may have appeared to have been guilty of a stereotypical ‘devil dog savaging’ could have misread the situation. When the facts reveal that this dog was shot and killed by Police at the scene for doing something that many, many dogs of many, many different breeds would have done in the same situation, would it have been too much to expect those who falsely and deliberately misreported this human death would have had the grace to alert their readers to their error?

You know, the papers who stated quite categorically that Mr Rehill was ’savaged to death by his dog’, would it be too pressing to expect them to issue just a little correction when the coroners report says ’stroke’ and ‘natural causes’?

Today, February 7th, it would appear Mr Rehill’s actually cause of death is being reported in just one place. Even the good old bastion of all that is decent, fair and accurate the BBC have not (at the time of this being published) issued a correction to their own headline (still live on their website) which claimed: “Dog kills owner in horror attack“.

The day after the attack, I did a round of interviews for various radio stations (mp3) who were demanding to know what should be done about these dog attack horrors. I did, as sensitively as I felt I could, raise the point that it was highly unlikely that Mr Rehill’s dog ‘just decided to kill him’ despite the overtones that that is exactly what happened.

So let us wait. Let us wait and watch and see if Mr Rehill’s family get a public apology from the media who wrongly reported and deliberately sensationalised his tragic death. That might happen, I have my doubts.

What I am all the more certain of though is that it would be far too much to expect that the Rottweiler - as a breed or even Mr Rehill’s late friend - will be offered any form of clarification. Let’s face it, that’s not going to happen. The Rottweiler is Britain’s current ‘devil dog’ and whilst the media might hate the breed, they certainly don’t hate it when they get a chance to hang, draw and quarter them at every turn.

So please, if nothing else, let this incident serve notice as categorical PROOF that what many dog owners have known for a long, long time is 100% true - some of our media will happily demonise an entire dog breed and whip up a public frenzy about ‘devil dogs’ whether they know ANY of the damn facts or not. The truth, as they say, will never get in the way of a ‘good’ story. It would seem, even if a man has lost his life.

If you love dogs and have a disposition that errs toward wanting to be told the truth, don’t let them get away with it. Write to them, complain to them and just bin them all together. As I said last week, they are in no small way to blame when misguided, gullible people decide to turf their dogs out into the street on the back of nothing more than lies, damn lies and predictable devil dog hype.

Author Details

Ryan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:37 pm

Obviously - any references to links in the above post won't work. Sorry.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:52 pm

LilacDragon;773589 wrote: Obviously - any references to links in the above post won't work. Sorry.

Thanks for update Lilac. Something didn't sound right when I originally read the original report. The dog sounded like a loyal companion.