Westwood pit-bulls case closed, no charges against owner

| Pets | Safety | West Seattle news | Westwood

We’ve followed up from time to time on the aftermath of the February 26th Westwood incident in which two pit bulls attacked a man and his Chihuahua, and then were shot by police (original WSB report here; followup with police-report narrative here). One pit bull died that night; the other was seized by the Seattle Animal Shelter. During our followup calls, SAS executive director Don Jordan had told us the dogs’ owner faced citations and possibly a criminal charge (March 3 update here; April 10 update here). The second dog’s fate depended on what happened with those cases. Jordan just called WSB to let us know the case is closed because the owner agreed to have the second dog euthanized. “We wanted to make sure that dog was off the street,” Jordan said. The civil citations and possible criminal charge are not being pursued, according to Jordan, because of that agreement, and also because the victim did not want to press charges or even give a written statement. Jordan had told us previously that this owner had a history of trouble involving other dogs, not these; we asked, so does that mean any restrictions can be put on his right to own or license dogs in the future? Not in this case, he said, noting that even in cases where people are found guilty of crimes involving animals and judges decide to impose such restrictions, they can never be prohibited from ownership for a period longer than 2 years. “That can be frustrating for us,” he acknowledged.

Scott B. May 23, 2008 (2:18 pm)

That owner is a scumbag for letting his dogs run loose.

mike May 23, 2008 (2:26 pm)

he’s just a scumbag!!! he chose killing his other dog instead of facing a prosecution. Then after all this “the system” is going to allow him to own other dogs, and continue the behavior. I’m appalled.

changingtimes May 23, 2008 (2:51 pm)

that is horrible! just horrible! i hope both dogs haunt him f-o-r-e-v-e-r!

Be free May 23, 2008 (2:56 pm)

So, because the guy agreed to kill his dog he won’t be prosecuted in any other way. That actually makes no sense at all. He should have to pay for the trouble of getting the police out there to shoot his dogs and traumatizing that poor man and his chihuahua.

drb May 23, 2008 (3:36 pm)

We can all agree that the owner is indeed a scumbag. But he’s hardly alone.

I walk my dogs, on leash, every day in Lincoln park, and 9 days out of 10 we encounter at least 1 off-leash dog, usually more. And this is before 7AM when the park is not crowded at all. When I confront the owners about it they seem entirely unconcerned, or they become hostile. Every entrance to that park is marked ‘Leash Pets’, so there is no way that the owners can be confused about whether their dogs are to be on leash or not.

My conclusion: there are many irresponsible dog owners in West Seattle. The scumbag with the dangerous pit bulls simply caused more harm than most.

My second conclusion: the city of Seattle is not up to the job of enforcing its own regulations.

On an entirely unrelated matter, I think I may be taking up the sport of paintball. Not sure why that idea occurred to me. Just a random thought.

CandrewB May 23, 2008 (4:44 pm)

Lucky for him he didn’t register his dogs to vote. Then he really would have been up the creek.

CP May 23, 2008 (5:34 pm)

Unfortunate on all counts – I agree, I most definitely blame the owner for this dogs behavior. How awful. It’s so sad that two dogs had to die and one had to be hurt before this this was taken care of. If you can refer to a slap on the wrist and not being able to have an animal for two years being “taken care of”. Awful.

d May 23, 2008 (6:52 pm)

That is so terrible! And, how did they come up with two years, I wonder? Just horrible.

Cynthia May 25, 2008 (1:45 pm)

“We wanted to make sure that dog was off the street”

The victim agreed to drop criminal charges IF the dog owner agreed to euthanize the dog. The deal seems good on the surface and Seattle Animal Control makes a habit of pushing this “agreement” onto victims after dog attacks. The problem is, once you drop criminal charges, a victim is NO LONGER be eligible for the Felony Victim Fund. Seattle Animal Control does NOT mention this MAJOR hangup when they advise the victim of this option (who, by the way was recently traumatized by a dog attack and likely can’t think straight). We need to get these dogs off the street PERIOD, without such a ridiculous “agreement,” that leaves victims sideswiped TWICE, first for the attack, second being dropped by the victim fund.

Sorry, comment time is over.