Comments on: Judge Seizes Man’s Dog For One Year After Attacks

By: Acehans

Acehans — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:50:02 +0000

i know lloyd, he was my sister inlaws nieghbor and was horrible and cruel to them. he is a jackass and his girlfriend kept jay with her and he LIVED with HER and THE DOG JAY! No matter what they do he will still have the dog. he had it and didn’t stay away from it for a year. he is a horrible person and verbally abused my sister inlaw who lived next to them and the kids were terrified to leave the house. he also harrassed their dog and tormentted it when they were gone so now shes just a mess and barks at anything. he will get his dog back before the year is over and it will attack anything that gets in its way. Lloyd is a cruel man with cruel intensions and yet he now has a new child that he’s putting into harms way of the dog. His dog needs to be put down before a child gets hurt

By: Brenda Wing

Brenda Wing — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:51:04 +0000

I am the owner of the Shih Tzu that Lloyd’s dog attacked In Marshall. I am still in shock, I can’t believe that Lloyd and his dog got by with this insanity. When it was stated in court, By the prorsacuting attorny to Judge Haroldson about a phone call from the vet that saved my dog’s life, stating that (this Pitt Bull, can & will attack a small child) Since Lloyd was charged and told he was not to be in posession of this Pitt Bull, he was seen with him and reported, I was told by the Marshall PD that this was/will be sent to the prosacuter to see if charges would be filed againt him, well duh !! wasn’t this a probation violation ? but yet not seen one thing in the paper in the court section about it. Judge Haroldson also said that Lloyd was to pay me restitution for my vet bill, one one penny paid yet ! Lloyd and Mr Natz explained to the Judge they were going to fight this, to this day I have not heard one word and my Vet bill get’s higher every month because I don’t have the money to pay on it as I should.
I am asking everyone who see’s this. to PLEASE call the police if they see this man with this dog or any dog like it. Lloyd has trained this dog to kill and it will, this Pitt Bull is very muscular. I pray that it won’t be “your” dog or worse yet, your child.

By: Diana

Diana — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:07:27 +0000

I am a dog owner, but I believe that this dog should have been put down. I wouldn’t want my dog to be attacked by another dog, but it would depend on the circumstances. For this dog to have attacked 3 dogs says that he will most likely continue to do that and is dangerous to have around other animals.It’s sad if he turned out this way because of how he was raised, but to be able to rehabilitate him is very questionable and not fair to put other dogs or people at risk.

Diana

By: EmilyS

EmilyS — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:24:22 +0000

of COURSE there’s a way to prevent this from happening again.
It’s SIMPLE. Every owner of a dog-aggressive dog knows how to do this.

KEEP THE DOG AWAY FROM OTHER DOGS.

TRAIN IT to behave around other dogs. YES, this is very very possible
(p.s. there’s no evidence this dog was “trained to fight”.. it’s in the nature of pit bulls, like MANY breeds, to be dog aggressive)

It’s really not rocket science.

The only problem with this ruling is determining whether the owner will be responsible enough to take those simple measures.

Odds are, though, irresponsible owner that he is, he will NOT. Odds are he will not take the dog back after the year is up.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:48:42 +0000

I wish this guy had been Congo’s judge.

By: mittens

mittens — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:57:32 +0000

would he give a gun back to someone who shot 3 people? why? because the guy said he’d be good? the judge is giving a dangerous weapon back to someone without the knowledge or respect to train and use it properly. the dog is the way he is because of the owner and the owner’s failings . this has been shown to be true 3 or more times. he should lose the dog and experts in dog training and behavior should decided if the animal needs to be put down- not some folksy self absorbed juge who knows nothing about canines.

By: Don Earl

Don Earl — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:07:45 +0000

I’d be inclined to agree with Tanya. Maybe there’s no way to prevent this sort of thing from happening the first time, but setting it up to happen a second time isn’t a good call.

My guess, though, is the judge is counting on this person not wanting the dog back after a year passes. I suspect many of those attracted to the so called “dangerous breeds” really don’t have a clue about handling such a pet and make their decision based on the aura of dangerousness alone.

If a person wants low maintanance home defense, buy a security system, not a dog. If a person wants a pet, study the breed before making the buying decision and make sure it’s one that will fit their lifestyle and ability to handle and train it.

By: Tanya

Tanya — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:58:26 +0000

I have problems with judges who assume they know better than experts. He may not belive in euthanisa, but at the same time, if a dog has been trained to fight, trained to attack, or just abused it may well be beyond retraining.

Also, the owner gets teh dog back after one year. how is that going to help anything.

We all know that in almost all cases of dog attacks, the fault lies not with teh animal but with the owner who didn’t know how to train the dog NOT to attack, didn’t care to train the dog, or actually (and this is where humans make me sick) enjoyed the power over an overly aggressive dog, so that it WANTED to attack.

the dog should not go back with the owner, no matter what it’s retrainablity is.

By: catmom5

catmom5 — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:39:33 +0000

So where will this dog be kept and will anyone try to do some obedience training to prevent a further attack? Lots of questions here, although I am glad that this judge didn’t automatically have the dog killed.