Operation Save Marley
I just signed this Change.org petition, and included this comment:
What is the point of having this dog euthanized? Why is this system so mechanical that it can’t or won’t distinguish between a dog who’s a threat and a dog who unsurprisingly under the circumstances thought someone was being harmed and tried to protect him? Seriously; what is the point of a system of that sort?
Anyone else care to add a protest to this kind of thing by signing the petition?
UPDATE: Sorry, but this is touching. This overreaction is outrageous. Added 7/21 at 6:51 p.m.
As a long time large breed dog owner (German Shepherds and Standard Poodles), I do not believe this dog should necessarily be euthanized. However, he clearly was not supervised around children. ALL dogs need to be supervised around children until absolute certainty of their behavior is attained. This dog may not be appropriate for some environments. I also wonder why it is taking ten months to figure this out.
Dotti:
Welcome to AB. Thank you for your comment.
For whatever reason, these processes take a ridiculously long time to resolve. Every time I read about this type of thing, it’s already taken several months.
Sorry, but this dog apparently was trying to protect a little boy from someone the dog thought was attacking him–someone whom the dog could not tell also was a child–he was 15, was wearing a mask, and chasing his 5-year-old brother with a toy gun. This is no indication at all that this dog is dangerous around children. It seems more to indicate that he is protective of children.
Please read this additional information: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-marley
Sorry, but in my opinion this overreaction is outrageous.
Animal control received a report of a dog attack, visited the house to investigate, and imposed a ten day home quarantine on the dog. Ten days later (the day that the quarantine is scheduled to expire), animal control received a report that the dog has attacked the boy a second time. When they investigated, they were told that the dog owner allowed the dog out in violation of the quarantine. At that point, they took the dog.
I believe that the petition is libelous, and will not sign it. It states that, “a recent accident tore Marley away… The incident occurred when Marley intervened in a game of cops and robbers between his girlfriend’s sons…. the neighbors called animal control and Marley was sent to the local shelter where he has been for the last 10 months.” The clear implication is that animal control removed the dog based on a single attack. That’s false–animal control decided to leave the dog in the home after the first attack.
This is the politics of destruction. Rather than make an honest case, the petition distorts the facts to make animal control look not merely wrong, but evil.
Kenneth:
Welcome to AB. First posts are always moderated.
Not to be an ass; but, did the dog attack a second time? If not, then where is the libel of a “public” official? Prove the dog attacked a second time. I believe the defendant also has the privilege of confrontation.
“Ten days later (the day that the quarantine is scheduled to expire), animal control received a report that the dog has attacked the boy a second time. When they investigated, they were told that the dog owner allowed the dog out in violation of the quarantine. At that point, they took the dog.”
The dog has attacked the owner’s 15-year-old son a second time? And this was reported by … whom? Do tell.
My apologies for not getting back to this site to respond sooner. My statement that there was a second attack was based on newspaper accounts by the News Herald. For example:
http://www.newsherald.com/article/20151122/NEWS/151129815
“On Oct. 6, the day the dog was scheduled to be off his 10-day quarantine, Animal Control received a complaint from Jones’ neighbor that the dog had attacked and bitten Freeman again. A neighbor told an officer that Marley had not been confined during the quarantine period, the report states.
Freeman told Halley he was taking Marley for a walk and the dog bit him when he reached down to let Marley off the leash. Halley took pictures of the wounds and impounded the dog.”
Jones is the owner of the dog, and Freeman is the 15 year old. A little later in the same news article:
“The second time Freeman was bitten was the last day of the dog’s 10-day quarantine imposed by Animal Control, which required the dog to be in a cage in the backyard. Jones said that when Freeman came home from school, Marley was whining to get out of the cage, and Freeman took him for a walk. He said Freeman ended up wrestling with the dog for a toy bear and the dog “nipped” him.”
Jones is elsewhere quoted as saying that in the second attack the dog scratched Freeman (rather than biting him), but there doesn’t seems to be any dispute that a second attack of some sort occurred.
The only court document I could find on this case is the brief for the County. It would be nice to get briefs for both sides, but the County brief does contain a direct quote from Freeman: “The second time he attacked me was because I came home one day after school took him for a walk and I took his leash off and then he started attacking me. All he did was cut me in different places.”
http://www.srpressgazette.com/assets/pdf/DA23217.PDF
It is fine to ask for evidence for my assertions, but I have to wonder why Beverly Mann didn’t ask for evidence that the factual assertions made in the petition were true before she signed it.
Let me see if I understand this – the 15 year-old (Freeman) is the only one that is getting “attacked” by this dog? Then my question is: What is the 15-year old doing to the dog to provoke it? Has the dog learned that this 15-year old means harm to him (the dog) or someone else? It sure seems like that! I think the whole truth isn’t being told. Why would a 15-year old put on a mask and play cops and robbers anyway? Sounds like the 15-year old has a mean streak and the dog has been the victim of it and knows it.