Innocent Pit Bull On Dog Death Row Gets New Life

TysonTyson, an American pit bull, will be getting a new life and loving home just in time for the holidays.

This innocent pit bull has been on dog death row for four years. He was ordered to be destroyed by a court in London in 2004. Tyson had done nothing wrong — he had not bitten or attacked anyone.

His owner had been convicted on three counts of allowing Tyson to be in a public place without a muzzle or lead, which is against the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

As she was leaving court, Tyson’s owner said, “You have condemned my dog to death - my innocent dog. You let pedophiles go free, but not my innocent dog.”

An appeal against the judge’s sentence was denied, which meant Tyson still faced euthanasia.

But finally when a second appeal was filed, the court’s ruling was overturned and Tyson became free again.

Tyson has been turned over to Juliette Glass, who runs a helpline for dog owners who have broken the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Glass said, “There’s been a huge miscarriage of justice but he’ll be home in time for Christmas so it is a very happy ending. He’s going to have a wonderful life down in Devon by the seaside. But we’re changing his name to Larry. We think it is a bit more subtle than Tyson, which kind of sends out the wrong signal about the dog. He’s a fat old boy now, with bad teeth, but we’re looking forward to seeing him.”

Source: Sky News

9 Responses to “Innocent Pit Bull On Dog Death Row Gets New Life”

  1. Gindy says:

    Tyson shouldn’t have been the one in jail. It should have been his stupid owner. All she had to do was obey the laws of her country, and her dog would have been free these last FOUR years. Instead she chose not to and SHE sentenced her dog to prison. I don’t blame the judge (they eventually saw the error of their ways UNLIKE the owner…) so much as the idiocy of the owner. When there is a law on the books you obey it until it changes. If you don’t like it, you do not disobey you work to change it. Stupid git.

  2. hazel says:

    Gindy

    You are correct in that the owner should have obeyed the law…but still the law is totally ignorant….and failure to abide should IMHO resulted in a warning not a death warent.

    In th epic..tyson really does not look like a pit…so perhaps she did not consider the dog as a pit??

  3. Ruth Mayer says:

    Juliette Glass and the Fury Defence Fund do not just help people who have ‘broken the Dangerous Dogs Act.’ they help people who are accused of breaking this law, most of whom are innocent.

    It would be helpful to publicise the Fury Defence Fund who a fantastic job in helping people who have nowhere else to turn to help save their dogs’ lives.

  4. Ruth Mayer says:

    Gindy, I doubt you are aware of the circumstances of Tyson’s owner or familiar with the details of the case.

    This law can catch anyone out, it is badly worded and badly interpreted by the police and it is sometimes difficult to save an innocent dog. Even a dog that has actually attacked and bitten, should not be subjected to the treatment these dogs receive if they are suspected of being a dangerous type.

    We all get very indignant and angry at the suffering of these poor dogs and their owners but little can be done until the law is changed.

  5. deroy says:

    “Tyson had done nothing wrong — he had not bitten or attacked anyone.
    His owner had been convicted on three counts of allowing Tyson to be in a public place without a muzzle or lead, which is against the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.”

    let me get this straight—any dog who is loose in public is automatically declared dangerous and is subject to euthanasia???
    i always thought of the UK as a place whose citizens were dog lovers. where are the animal rights people when we need them? oh yes, i forgot, tyson is a pet so he can be sacrificed. wild animals good, pets bad.

  6. Lynn says:

    Terrible miscarriage of justice. Four years the poor animal was incarcerated.

    People must follow laws - this only proves how something so minor can turn out to be totally insane.

    Three counts…..meaning his owner violated on three separate occasions? Or???

    Why did the owner turn over Larry to Juliet Glass? Was this a condition of release? Or??? The source doesn’t say. [Gee, why don’t they report a whole story? Don’t they get all the facts anymore?]

    Tyson - whoops, make that Larry - is so very, very lucky to have found Ms. Glass.

    Hopefully England is working towards changing the law.

  7. Gindy says:

    Sorry folks, it is still the OWNER’S responsibility to obey the law, stupid or not. We have some really dumb ass laws in the USA, even some as badly worded as the one Tyson’s owner willingly broke.
    I still maintain she is the one responsible for her behavior, not the dog and not the law. She chose 100% to not muzzle her animal in accordance with the law. I also agree that it is a stupid, ill worded law, but it can be changed.
    And Ruth I am familiar with the case, I read the whole article and accompanying ones all the way back to the first incident. Leash, muzzle, THEN walk the dog. I do the same thing here with my GSD. He’s a trained police dog, retired to my family. He has to be muzzled according to the contract I signed in order to save him from being put down. I know what I am supposed to do and I damned well do it to make sure my dog is not seized and suffers the same fate as Tyson almost did due to his owner’s stupidity and stubbornness.

  8. qadar says:

    tyson ownear was stupid to let him of the lead so i say tyson should go to a new home

  9. abdul says:

    i hate tyson owner he shouldnt have took the lead off


Close
E-mail It