Proposed Bill Could Save Congo The Dog’s Life

CongoA proposed bill introduced in the New Jersey state assembly could save Congo’s life.

There has been nationwide attention over Congo, a German Shepherd, that was ordered to be put down after attacking a landscaper on his owner’s property. Congo’s owners said that their dog was simply protecting his family, but the municipal prosecutor said the attack was unprovoked. A municipal court judge ruled that Congo was dangerous and should be put down, but Congo’s family appealed the decision to the Superior Court, and they are awaiting Congo’s fate.

Last week, New Jersey Assemblyman Neil Cohen introduced a bill called Congo’s Law [A4597] that could possibly save this dog’s life. Cohen believes current laws in regards to dangerous dogs are outdated and unfair.

Some of the provisions in the proposed law will include a definition of provocation that will take into account the dog’s point of view which includes “causing or inciting a dog to defend itself, its offspring, or its owner or a family member of its owner, by engaging in threatening actions or behavior” such as “entering property without the presence, permission, or direction of the owner”. In addition, a dog would need to be found vicious “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Dogs would also be allowed to return to their owners while their cases are being decided if owners comply with the conditions for “potentially dangerous” dogs.

The proposed bill would provide an alternative for euthanizing dogs declared “vicious” by allowing their owners to comply with the same precautions mandated for keeping a “potentially dangerous” dog.

If the law is passed, it would apply to current and pending cases and retroactively to dogs facing euthanasia by court orders back to January 1, 2007, including Congo.

Cohen said, “The nature of a dog is to protect those around them. Self-defense and the defense of others is a justification for human violence, and dogs should have the same protection. Congo’s situation points up the need to modernize the law and make it fair to the owners and the animals.”

Source: The Times, Packet Online

Photo: warreneckstein.com

(Thanks Sharon and Lynn)

44 Responses to “Proposed Bill Could Save Congo The Dog’s Life”

  1. Nancy G. says:

    EXCELLENT!! Finally, some common sense. Esp. that last paragraph. Excellent point. Self-defense, even lethal self-defense, is allowed with people, why not dogs? But I foresee the police community lobbying hard to kill this bill, claiming it would put THEM at risk if they can’t shoot dogs any time they want to. And the anti-pit bull crowd, fanning hysteria with lurid tales of spared killer dogs roaming the streets.

  2. Nora and Rufus says:

    Oh! Congo is so beautiful and brave. It is so heartening to see laws that make sense. Hopefully no more senseless idiots killing and causing great animals to be put down.

  3. Marilyn says:

    I agree. Common sense should prevail and I hope this bill is passed. But, I also agree that the police will probably lobby hard against it. Although I don’t see any reason why this bill would really change anything for them. They already have the right to use lethal force against any human that threatens them, even though humans have the right to self defense. So this bill shouldn’t make any difference for them.

  4. Tanya says:

    As long as the bill is written carefully, and not just a “knee jerk reaction” to what has become a public situation (with very few people knowing all the facts, by the way), then it’s good.

    But, i would also make sure that any home with a dog large enough to inflict any damage in its bite MUST be registered and they must have a sign (preferably in graphics) to let people know there is a dog here, and ALL DOGS can be dangerous.

    i say this, cause we routinly have incidents where young kids (from toddlers to 6 or7 year olds) want to “pet the pretty doggie”, and do not understand that from the “pretty doggie’s” point of view, a hand in a fence is something worth a bite.

    Adults - i’m not worried about, if there is a sign. if you ignore a dog, or the owner, or the sign saying “dog on presence”, then it’s your problem. But if you were told to report to work at 6, or if you are lost and looking for someone to help you, etc., you need to know there is a dog, dangerous or not, who might take your presence as an act of aggression.

    In today’s world of “too busy to even notice my kids” too many dogs are going untrained, and that can leave to people thinking thier dogs are very docile, but not knowing what to do if the dog should take an action as a threat and attack.

  5. Robert Davis says:

    Its about time for a good bill like this!!!! I hope it passes! I think I will bring up a copy of the bill to my reps here in MN and see what we can’t do here. It’s time to update our laws to protect our protectors! Thank you Assembleyman Cohen.

    Robert Davis

  6. Robert Davis says:

    Tanya, you wrote “a hand in a fence is something worth a bite.” One BIG question - why is a child trespassing to begin with and where are the parents of this child???? Personal responsibility!!!! I don’t mean to talk loudly on this but I have had some experience with this issue……in Lilburn, GA. I called the police and they told me there was nothing they could do but if my dog bit this TRESSPASSING CHILD who put her hand in the fence, whose parents were not teaching her how to respect others property and stay away, then my dogs would be picked up and taken away.

    I tried to get the police officer to arrest the child for tresspassing - I had warned this child many times over to leave my yard, my fence and my dogs alone. The police just laughed like I was crazy and I told him she was tresspassing and he said he would have to see her.

    The child didn’t care when I warned her to stay away and I had a since that said Dogs in Fence. It wasn’t until I cursed her out and called her every name in the book did she finally leave my property and not come back. I should have never had to resort to that but my dogs lives were in danger because this stupid child was not listening and tresspassing and the parents nor the police seemed to care. They would have cared if she was bit and my dogs would have been justified..she was a menace and she was a provoker….but I’m sure they would be put down for her stupidity and refusal to follow an adults direction and tresspassing laws.

    Robert Davis

  7. Lynn says:

    That toy at Congo’s feet is his stuffed animal.

    Hallelujah! Thanks to the perseverance of the Guy James family and particularly Assemblyman Neil Cohen, Bill A4597 will bring relief for animals. It is long overdue. Particularly in Congo’s case, where the decision to incarcerate and kill Congo was made in Municipal Court by the highly questionable judgment of the Municipal-level judge and the weak laws currently in place.

    Check out the following website for comments made by other attorneys who have represented animal bite cases:

    http://warreneckstein.com/action/congo.html

  8. Karen Goodhart says:

    Tanya, I understand exactly what you’re saying. I have 2 LARGE dogs and 2 SMALL children and despite what I do, not one of them is perfect. My dogs are very good natured. I hope my neighbors don’t adopt certain viewpoints and cut their noses off because the ’stupid’ animal stuck his nose through the fence and was trespassing.

    The point of what you were saying was that the new legislation needs to not only protect the pet in certain circumstances, but also to protect them from the ignorance and neglect of the owner. I couldn’t agree with your more.

    Karen

  9. Guy James says:

    Thanks to everyone supporting us through this whole thing. Everyone who is speaking out on behalf of Congo will be the ones to thank. People caring and doing the right thing makes alll the difference in the world. We need to go through all of this so that there are more protections for pets and their owners. To give in to a plea would make us cowards and liars. We are neither. Our dogs are not vicious or dangerous therefore we will continue our fight. Dogs are a part of our family and also protective of all members as any of the humans would be toward their family. A very unfortunate occurence may lead to better laws and safeguards for the pet population!

  10. Carol Johnson says:

    I hope this is what it takes to bring some justice to this sad situation. IMHO…the landscaper was looking fro a big payday….and Congo should not have to pay for it.

  11. Jenny Bark says:

    Guy James, Elizabeth, kids, Congo & all the other babies, THANK YOU. Our prayers are with you & all most all support you. Please let us know what else if anything we can do to suport you all. If anyone else needs calling or wrote to. please let us know. Remember we are from all different states. but stand ready to help. Bless you all.

  12. Don Earl says:

    The facts in this situation are:

    1. The landscaper came onto the property at the owner’s request.

    2. Knowing the landscaper’s were coming, the owners did not confine their dogs.

    3. Upon the landscaper’s arrival, the owner yelled out the window to wait in the car while he confined the dogs.

    4. Instead of confining the dogs, the owner went and took a shower.

    5. After waiting a reasonable amount of time for the dogs to be called in, and not seeing any dogs, the landscaper exited his vehicle.

    6. The landscaper was then surrounded by a pack of snarling dogs and tried to fend them off with a rake.

    7. The owner’s wife then ran out of the house and began screaming at the landscaper, thus triggering a viscious attack on the landscaper, which left him maimed for life after $150,000 in hospital bills.

    Does Congo deserve to be put to death under the circumstances? Probably not.

    Should these pet owners be imprisoned for assault? Damn straight!

  13. mittens says:

    don- your version of events is contrary to other versions- i see no reason to believe your version over any of the others considering the landscaper himself, according even to the animal control officer involved who agrees with putting the dog down, changed his story- probably a version of yours, more than 3 times.

    allegedly ,they arrived an hour earlier then expected and the owner was in the shower when they arrived. he heard the car, shouted out the window for them to not leave their vehicle. the owner’s wife at about the same time drove up to the house in her vehicle and got out, causing the landscapers for some unknown reason to get out of their car. one of the landscapers further grabbed the woman and ended up throwing her to the ground- clearly perceived by most any dog from a poodle to a pit bull as provacative behavior - harm toward an owner and thus a threat.

    my mother was tickling me once and i was on the floor screaming and giggling. the dog that i was raised with , who had never bitten a soul in 10 years of life, lunged at her, barking and snarling and attempted to get her away from me . he perceived her actions as harm to me. no harm was caused and it is not in any way the same as a true dog attack but this is merely an example of canine behavior in a well trained family dog who was a springer spaniel. no matter whose story is true, there is absolutely no evidence the owners encouraged the dogs to attack or launched them into attack ON PURPOSE. clearly , the dogs felt their humans and perhaps more importantly their puppies, were in danger. the humans may have reacted poorly and ignorantly but the dogs acted according to natural instinct.

    . that the insurance company paid means nothing in terms of evidence( and the amount you give is different from the news stories)- they’d probably pay as cheaper than litigation any even perceived accidental harm to someone on the property. it’s why we get home owner’s insurance. i have seen no reports that the landscaper was ‘ maimed for life’. only that he was hurt and received rabies shots which are given in series. personally if i saw someone attacking my PUPPIES( some of the dogs were part of a litter) with a rake i’d scream too. the story from the landscaper’s side is fishy all around even by admission of members of the prosecution. i take it that events were confused , the landscapers were fearful of dogs to begin with and that perhaps the person(the wife) who was physically nearest when the incident occured may not have been able in effectively communicate to the workers who probably had little or no english.

    everyone, including legal american citizens, is looking for a damn pay day . feigning more serious injury in everything from car accidents to workers comp is a scam not unknown but actually quite prevelant in illegal immigrant communities. the auto scam is particularly popular and migrants are exploited mercilessly and truly hurt by it- the bulk of the money going to professional scammers. i am not saying this is involved here- i dont know but it’s not an unheard of occurance in a country were people are awarded millions of dollars for dumping hot coffee in their own laps.

    the so called ‘ facts’ in this matter are highly disputed and from the demeanor of the dog from evidence actually provided in the court has NOT been proven to be unduely aggressive. the owner apparently planned to put the dogs away for the arrival of the workers but they came early. the workers were warned to stay in the car. perhaps things could have been handled differently but no one has stated the owners set the dogs on the workers so your assertion they should be imprisoned for assault is unfounded and reactionary-if they had directed the assualt that would be true but all in all it appears a storm of happenstance and foolish highly emotionally charged illogical decisions by all the humans involved. it appears a terrible accident for which the animals and the humans do not need to be punished as if it were a true willful criminal act.

  14. Lynn says:

    Thanks to Guy James and his family for seeing this through. Too many other pet guardians would have given up.

    New Jersey Bill A4597 is much needed.

    We would all be wise to take the time to examine our own state’s laws regarding definitions of animal-related terms such as “vicious” and “dangerous” and “provoked” in our own states and understand how that could affect us if our pet attacked. Better to check it all out now, rather than to one day find yourself in a situation where YOUR dog is incarcerated on death row.

  15. shibadiva says:

    Kudos to Neil Cohen for introducing this bill, which will go a long way to providing fairer treatment of the fellow inhabitants of this blue planet, and compensating for human ignorance.

  16. ellis says:

    “To give in to a plea would make us cowards and liars. We are neither. Our dogs are not vicious or dangerous therefore we will continue our fight.”

    What you are, in my most humble opinion, is a negligent dog owner who’s inaction and irresponsibility set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to a completely innocent man being horribly mauled. (wait a minute, i’m not done.)

    To make matters worse, you then *turned down* a plea deal that would have saved Congo’s life. This much is not in dispute, as far as I can see.

    Personally, Mr. James, if it would save one of my companion’s lives I would lie, cheat, beg, borrow, and/or steal… all at the same time. I suppose you and I are different.

    Does Congo deserve death? I don’t think so. Too bad the one who could have saved his life long ago decided that pride was more important.

    “A very unfortunate occurence may lead to better laws and safeguards for the pet population!”

    Sorry to say but, there is no way that any court in any of the states in the country will ever place an animal’s life or health above that of a human. If you think that your lack of personal responsibility *or* the horrible conditions that your inaction caused will somehow translate into Fido becoming anything but property in the eyes of the law… then you are sadly mistaken.

  17. Ginny Amalfi says:

    ” I don’t believe the dogs are being put before humans in the Congo Case. I believe what needs to be done is to seperate a dogs perspective from a Human perspective within our laws. It’s imperative to re-define terms such as, provacation, vicious, potentially dangerous & weed out the grey areas of the existing laws. It is the right of the people to excercise our political and personal views. The Congo case is not a case that is black and white as some are trying to make it seem. The Congo case is about a landscaper (Mr. Rivera) who “unintentionally” caused provacation on the James property by merely, (1) exhibiting frantic postures and behaviors at barking dogs, (2) proding at the dogs with a rake, (3) using the dogs Mistress as a shield while doing that (4) the landscapers physical bodily contact caused Congo’s Mistress to fall to the ground with the landscaper. The James dogs were only barking while a garden metal rake was being swung at the dogs by one of the five men at the James property. Contact with the rake was made to at least one of the pups. Before any thing occurred the landscapers were told to stay in their vehicles. They did not listen. Hense…I believe all while this action was taking place (the barking, intense swinging of a metal garden rake, screams from Mrs. James) they were repeatedly told to get back into their vehicles. Which they still did not retreat into their vehicle. The dogs did not make physical contact “until” Mr. Rivera physically grabbed Mrs. James to sheild himself from barking dogs causing her to fall to the ground with him. That action “alone is provacation” as seen through the eyes of Congo or any pet dog on an owners property. There are many cases where dogs are abused buy poking, proding, yanking, kicking and the dog only cowards in a corner..(although our public hears that they stand up and say that person should be shot for abusing that dog)………but take that “same” dog and put it in the situation as Congo was, you better believe that dogs natural instincts kick in & he will protect his master/mistress/children of the family & his offspring. To condemn Congo to death and label him vicious and the other dogs potentially dangerous is a sin and down right unjust. It doesn’t take psyco analysis, or a rocket scientist to conclude that Congo did what he was supposed to do in that given situation, protect his Mistress. I support Congo’s Law. Submitted by Ginny Amalfi, Hopewell Valley Kennel “

  18. Robert Davis says:

    just to set the record straight on the hot coffee….mcdonalds had received many many many complaints about the extreme hot coffee and in this instance the lady received 3rd degree burns in her private area. that case has been misquoted many times over. the lady in that cased deserved the award the jury gave her, but the judge reduced the amount she received. she only asked for her medical expenses plus pain and suffering which was well below the jury award.

    BUT i understand and agree with what you mean in other cases when people do try to scam and there really is no injury.

  19. Don Earl says:

    RE: “don- your version of events is contrary to other versions… the landscaper himself… changed his story… more than 3 times.”

    Actually, I have yet to see the landscaper’s version reported by any media source. The previous post is from the James’ version of events in the earliest, and admittedly hopelessly slanted media accounts.

    The bottom line is if the James were the least bit responsible as pet owners, the attack never would have happened. They could have prevented the attack at no less than three different points in the series of events.

    1. The dogs should have been confined before the workers arrived.

    2. Having failed on number 1, the dogs should have been immediately confined upon the workers arrival.

    3. Having failed on number 1 and 2, Mrs. James should have immediately called the dogs off when she saw them assaulting the worker.

    There seems to be a mindset among some dog owners that it is okay for their pets to raise seven different kinds of hell upon sighting any citizen going quietly about their private affairs, and to bite those citizens at will. My view is those types of sociopathic pet owners belong in jail.

    I’m a big fan of the Will Rogers quote that, “Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.”.

    When a pet owner allows their pets to harm innocent people through a lack of personal responsibility, they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. I realize that view is likely to be unpopular in this age where half the population seems to be suffering from the California syndrome where everything that happens is someone else’s fault, but that’s my view never the less.

    This dog attack never should have happened, and it’s the James’ fault that it did. No lame excuses. No lame rationalizations.

  20. Robert Davis says:

    Don Wrote:

    1. The dogs should have been confined before the workers arrived.

    Response: I agree and they would have been if the workers did not arrive 1 hour early unannounced. It is very common practice to feed dogs and have them go to the bathroom prior to workers coming over on AGREED times. It also quite respectful for workers to show up ontime and not 1 hour before, which can throw off everyone else’s schedule. It is also respectful for workers to LISTEN to INSTRUCTIONS given by the person HIRING you to do the job. I NEVER had a problem with LOWES or HOME DEPOT people when I gave them instructions - and they NEVER got bit because they showed up on agreed times and I had my dogs away….plus my conctracters were NOT attacking me or any of the other dogs either.

    2. Having failed on number 1, the dogs should have been immediately confined upon the workers arrival.

    RESPONSE: The workers were told to get back in their car in their native language. Period. End of story. They were no longer given the right to be on this mans property at that point in time. By failing to abide by his directions, so he could get the dogs up they lose the ability to cry foul - they were now trespassing. Even if you invite someone on to your property, if you tell them to leave or get back in the car you are revoking their right to be out of the car walking on your property - that is the RIGHT of LAND OWNERS and HOME OWNERS to give direction on who can and can’t be on your property.

    3. Having failed on number 1 and 2, Mrs. James should have immediately called the dogs off when she saw them assaulting the worker.

    RESPONSE: The workers assualted the puppies first. The dogs had every right to go after those men. And then they assaulted her and drug her to the ground. Normal response for a dog to protect his or her owner.

    Don wrote: When a pet owner allows their pets to harm innocent people through a lack of personal responsibility, they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
    Response: I agree. In this case the pet owners were not lacking responsibility and did what they could to prevent any problem, yet the workers escalated the issue by (1) not following directions and trespassing, (2) attacking the puppies and (3) attacking his wife.

    Don wrote: There seems to be a mindset among some dog owners that it is okay for their pets to raise seven different kinds of hell upon sighting any citizen going quietly about their private affairs, and to bite those citizens at will. My view is those types of sociopathic pet owners belong in jail.

    RESPONSE: you know this is not the case in this instance. You sound like FOX news sensationalizing when your statement has no basis in fact.

    Kind Regards,

    Robert Davis

  21. Lynn says:

    And no lame ignorance of reported facts, please.

    Specifically, the dogs WOULD have been confined BEFORE the workers arrived IF the workers had arrived at the time EXPECTED.

  22. Tom says:

    I’m praying that the State does not pass this bill in its current form. In my opinion there needs to be “malice intent” on the human’s part. If not, the next time a girl scout walks up a driveway to sell cookies and gets mauled by a “dog protecting its property” the parents nor law enforcement will have recourse. As a Law Enforcement Officer I routinely respond to residences for everything from domestic violence to noise complaints. What recourse would I have if the “protecting dog” attacks me while I’m attempting to arrest an abuser? A more common incident is checking out alarm activation when the owner is not home. I don’t feel the Assemblyman took into consideration protection dogs used by criminals (drug dealers, dog fighters). I do agree that death is not the answer; however, domestic animals should be kept as members of the family. Leave the protecting to Law Enforcement and the alarm company.

  23. BRENDA says:

    Do NOT put down this dog. He is obviously a family pet and was protecting his family. The men taunted his dog, hit him and grabbed the wife, per the husband. Congo had a right to protect his family and he did. Pets have rights too!

  24. Freets says:

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT PUT THIS DOG DOWN. He did what he was supposed to do - protect his family. They love him, and the children will be devastated. That’s why people have dogs - for protection. The ‘illegal’ immigrant already got insurance money, there is no need to kill this brave and wonderful animal. They want to destroy a wonderful athlete’s life for supporting dog fighting, but they feel it’s ok to kill when they want to. I guess it just depends on who you are - huh??

  25. Denise says:

    Dear James Family,

    I sincerely hope you win your fight to save his life. The US constitution has become so bloated protecting other people’s rights that is ridiculous. Illegal aliens use our own Constitution and income against us.

    It is my belief and constitutional right to protect what is legally mine. And if my weapon of choice is a guard dog that is my right.

    Congo was only doing what he does naturally. Protecting his family from what he perceived as a threat.

    To put this dog down, citing him as vicious should be a crime. He should not be allowed to profit from this in any way. His medical bills should be paid and that is it.

    Yeah, I guess in this Great Country there are those who count and those who don’t.

    We aren’t we just as quick to kill convicted murderers??

    CONGO: GOOD BOY!

  26. john huttner says:

    Why don’t they deport rivera …he broke the law by entering this country, he should not be able to collect from this unfortunate incident. Send him back; fine the family that hired illegals to do their lawn (lazy people).
    And give Congo a bone!!
    John Huttner

  27. dsoifvet06 says:

    I cannot believe this, lets get to the point he was an ILLEGAL ALIEN. He should have received nothing. The company who hired him should have been fined for hiring illegal aliens. Just think if he wasnt here illegally this would never be an issue. I think the dog made the right choice.

  28. KingCong says:

    My gardener is precise and punctual or he gets a high voltage shock. Once he came over just to attack my dogs and my wife. My dog had the right to bite him due to his (the gardeners) outstanding parking tickets. My dog is depressed because he does not like the sound of crunching bones. Last time that I hired a gardener to rake my yard I did not expect him to actually enter my yard. I comunicate with my family and friends by yelling out of the bathroom window. I don’t know why they would make a threatening move like exiting their vehicle. I would expect them to discard a rake if charged by a dangerous dog. If in the presence of the dogs owner, The gardener should stand in front of that family member to take the brunt of the attack. Next time I will hire a pitbull to do the raking.

  29. ellis says:

    LOL !!!!!!!! I agree with KingCong.

    Hey, Guy James… some of us are keeping a victim count for you. I’ve got ya’ down for 2 so far, Congo and Rivera the landscaper… but hopefully Congo will be spared yet.

    If Congo is put down then make no mistake about it… it is the fault of GUY JAMES, Congo’s human.

    Here’s a good pic of Mr. James complete with commentary calling into question his spanish-speaking skills: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot......e-doh.html

    Nobody in their right mind would (or should) think that Congo deserves death, but what we think isn’t necessarily relevant when it comes to a Judge doling out punishment based on LAWS that were enacted by politicians ‘hired’ by the residents of NJ to represent them.

    Has anyone even bothered to ask why it was necessary for Rivera to undergo rabies shots after the attack? I may be speculating here but wouldn’t that mean that Congo’s rabies vaccination history wasn’t verifiable, or possibly even non-existent?

    I’m as American as most of the racists who have posted hate directed towards one of the victims here, and I **do not** support illegal immigration… but I feel overwhelmed with disgust and shame when I read some of the comments on Congo’s situation. Hell, deport him… take his judgement (250K) away… as if a horrible mauling by a muscular dog with large and sharp teeth wasn’t enough punishment for ARRIVING AT WORK AN HOUR EARLY.

    We all love our animal companions, but having them comes with responsibility. Part of that responsibility includes preventing them from harming other people. It is very clear that Guy James failed miserably in his RESPONSIBILITY as a dog owner and Congo’s companion. If you do not want a repeat of this horror then in the future you must at all times be aware of your responsibility and never fail to live up to it.

  30. Bane says:

    Ellis, get off your high horse. Rivera is nothing but your typical parasitic criminal illegal who saw a gold mine and exacerbated the situation to get a payday. I saw his wounds in the new reports…they are not that bad. And what right did he have to put his hands on that woman? That’s battery, pure and simple. And what kind of a slimeball is he that he would shield himself with a woman’s body? That shows what kind of a lowlife he is. He’s an opportunist who doesn’t give a damn if an innocent animal dies as long as he gets his loot. He should be deported…there’s nothing racist about that. He’s here illegally. Period. If you want to defend people like him who come here uninvited and then riddle us with their crime, disease (they’re actually bringing LEPROSY in!), and welfare burden, then YOU pay for the medical bills and expenses of these illegals who come here to have their babies and such, thus overloading the hospitals in the American border towns to the point that these hospitals have to be shut down. These people are parasites and a serious problem. They are also habitually extremely cruel to animals, killing pets in the backyards that they cross through (trespassing) while they invade our country. They should get NO AMNESTY. Deport them. Racism is when you prefer your race to all others for no apparent reason. People are against the illegals for many legitimate reasons, such as the ones I illustrated above. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin. If they came here legally, learned English quickly, did not overburden the welfare system, did not bring disease and crime in, did not abuse our animals, respected our culture (which they currently do not by refusing to learn English), and contributed productively to our society, most Americans would not give a damn about their skin color.

  31. Bane says:

    The minute people complain about the dishonest behavior of an illegal immigrant which has a detrimental effect on an American, as the situation is here, it is the knee jerk reaction of people like you to cry “racist”! I guess by doing so you feel self righteous and noble…morally superior, if you will. But in reality, you’re nothing but a cliche, trying to feel better about yourself by calling others racists. Nowhere in your posts have you acknowledged the fact that Rivera grabbed the woman or stormed onto the property without permission…or the fact that even the jerk animal control officer who wants Congo killed had to admit that Rivera changed his story three times. Rivera’s a crook. Period.

  32. ellis says:

    Why don’t you take the time to read-up on the subject so you can have the facts proper before posting?

    The three different ’stories’ from Mr. Rivera actually came from three different interpreters. I don’t know how familiar you (or the interpreters) are with Spanish but according to the link I provided before http://lassiegethelp.blogspot......e-doh.html
    … “Does Guy James speak fluent Spanish? Dunno, but one vowel makes the difference between “wait in the car” and “they’re waiting in the car,” and darned if Mrs. James and her son didn’t show up in her car fifteen minutes after the landscape crew arrived: one of the dogs had escaped the yard, and they’d been out looking for it. I suppose it’s possible that Guy James leaned out the window and shouted [in Spanish], “I’m about to take a shower. My German shepherds are loose — stay in your truck until I come downstairs and lock them up,” but I doubt it. If he shouted anything, I imagine it was more along the lines of “Wait fifteen minutes in the car.” ”

    On second though, please don’t pay any attention to what I’m saying. Instead, re-read KingCong’s post above. It seems more on your level, and maybe easier for you to understand.

  33. Mike says:

    The dog was defending its owner. The gardner, an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT was attacking the wife. The illegal pulled her to the ground and she was screaming. The dog was defending its owner, doing its job out of devotion and love, what anyone would do. That dog is a hero, that illegal alien had it coming. He is a criminal and needs to have the money taken away and be deported.

  34. Patrick says:

    1. The insurer for the homeowner/dogowner paid $250,000
    2. Do insurers, with their teams of lawyers, pay claims that are not meritorious, particularly where the plaintiff (i.e. injured person) is an illegal? Of course not. The insurer clearly saw that the liability rested with the homeowner, otherwise, it would take the case to trial and let the WASP neighbors of these obviously wealthy (10+ acres yard) bury the illegal with a defense verdict.
    3. The law on dangerous dogs is actually more prospective than retrospective, or penal. Congo mauled the hell out of this guy. Congo is a dangerous dog, unafraid of humans, who will unfortunately be agressive.
    4. Congo is this way because the cry-baby father failed to teach Congo that humans are Alpha, and dogs are Beta.
    5. Had Congo been trained, one word by the wife would have sat Congo down. Instead, he attacks.
    6. The law will put Congo down not for what he did, but for what he’s going to do. The next victim will be a young child, and the result won’t be as pretty. The gardner comes from a tough stock. The little kid who gets mauled while playing law tennis is who the law is going to protect.
    7. I own two dogs, and a cat, and adopted one dog from rescue.
    8. A litte nip is tolerable, if not excusable.
    9. A mauling is goodbye.
    10 I’m as sad as the next person. I love dogs. But I also love people, particularly children, and to have a human go through life maimed and scarred (or dead) is not worth Congo’s freedom/continued existence.
    11. If these people cared at all about Congo, they’d find a police department or farm to send him to ASAP. He’s going down.

  35. Mike Texas says:

    Thank God for rational thinking judges that protect homeowners and dogs.

    a) The illegal mexican should not even be in our country. He is fortunate that our border patrol did not shoot him.

    b) The dog was merely protecting the owner after the mexican pushed the owner and took a rake after the dog.

    I find it reprehensible and pathetic that ACLU types defend the tresspasser. In short, stay in your country and stay out of ours!

    God bless you, Congo!

  36. C1982 says:

    #1 We definitely need a law that protects are animals when they are protecting their own home. An animal will fight to the death to protect its owner, just like a blood relative would. Actually i consider dogs to be more loyal than most people. How could anyone possibly want to hurt this dog for trying to protect his home and family. Dogs should have rights… Especially if illegal aliens have them!!!!!

    #2 I also believe that these illegal aliens are becoming more and more of a problem. Constantly trying to change our laws and always trying to get money and take advantage of our legal citizens. My girlfriends dad actually had an illegal alien run his car trying to pretending to be hurt , like he hit her. Thank god there was a witness who saw her throw herself at the car. We have enough of our own problem people here we dont need other countries problem people to. Who knows if the country they came from has respect for animals the same way we do. If that dog gets put down it will just be one less right we have, and one more right they have as non-citizens!!!!!!

  37. Lobolicious says:

    Better fences, at the border and the home, as well as Schutzhund training, would have prevented this mess.

  38. &%#@!! says:

    I would like to torture the dirty, low down illegal alien and he would have no right to protest. If he were not here illegally, I would not be able to rake him over the coals. He should operate like the American service companies and only promise to arrive sometime before noon or sometime after noon. The dog was only doing his job. The illegal on the other hand was up to no good. He said he was there to do gardening for the brother of his employer but why would he show up with a rake? He used it against Congo and four puppies (picture newborn pups). Why would he get out of his car when one of the homeowners arrived if he was not intent on attacking her in front of a pack of her own German Shepherds? Congo obviously saw the gardeners as trespassers when they drove over the property line. The sixth German shepherd was probably out loose in the neighborhood to scout for approaching illegals. This is another example of an illegal taking an opportunity away from an American. That could have been a hardworking ‘legal’ American getting an insurance settlement.

  39. Janet Murphy says:

    I live in British Columbia, Canada and Congo’s plight is heartbreaking.
    I hope the judges do what is right and let this brave dog live for protecting who he loves. He did not attack until provoked by the actions of the gardeners.

  40. Janet Murphy says:

    I live in British Columbia, Canada and Congo’s plight is heartbreaking.
    I hope the judges do what is right and let this brave dog live for protecting who he loves. He did not attack until provoked by the actions of the gardeners. If Congo had of saved a drowning child the day before, then he would be marked a hero one day and then a vicious dog the next for protecting those he loves.

  41. Samantha says:

    Congo should be saved and the gardner should be jailed. I have no problems with people coming to our country to work. Unless you are Native American Indian or Mexican (New Mexico is called that for a reason) your ancestors were imigrants. BUT anyone who comes here to work or live should learn ENGLISH! I am American and do not like being treated like an outsider (when I was BORN HERE) because I do not speak Spanish! Maybe if the landscaper knew English that would have solved part of the problem or had enough common sense to realize that there were dogs in the yard and to WAIT! He admits to being told to wait and he did not! Plus most Latin countries do not have the same regard for animals as we do, not that is wrong were they do not have the luxuries as we do, but they do not all have the same values as someone who is American born and raised. A good friend who is an American born Mexican who has three rescued dogs expalined that to me so by no means is the intended to be racist. My best friend and many of the men I have dated are Mexican. The fact is the gardener was in the wrong. He went on the property after being asked to wait, beat puppies with a rake and threw a woman to the ground. I understand he was trying to work, but he was also breaking the law and should be jailed! The dog is a good dog and I agree with the dog owners and not agreeing to say that their dog is vicious as he is not a vicious dog and the owners are doing what is right for every dog owner in this country! I hope the Bill A4597 does get passed! We need laws to protect our pets!

  42. Samantha says:

    Congo should be saved and the gardner should be jailed. I have no problem with people coming to our country to work. Unless you are Native American Indian or Mexican (New Mexico is called that for a reason) your ancestors were imigrants. BUT anyone who comes here to work or live should learn ENGLISH! I am American and do not like being treated like an outsider (when I was BORN HERE) because I do not speak Spanish! Maybe if the landscaper knew English that would have solved part of the problem or had enough common sense to realize that there were dogs in the yard and to WAIT! He admits to being told to wait and he did not! Plus most Latin countries do not have the same regard for animals as we do, not that is wrong were they do not have the luxuries as we do, but they do not all have the same values as someone who is American born and raised. A good friend who is an American born Mexican who has three rescued dogs explained that to me: so by no means is that intended to be racist. My best friend and many of the men I have dated are Mexican. The fact is the gardener was in the wrong and should be jailed. He went on the property after being asked to wait, beat puppies with a rake and threw a woman to the ground. I understand he was trying to work, but he was also breaking the law and should be jailed! The dog is a good dog and I agree with the dog owners and not agreeing to say that their dog is vicious as he is not a vicious dog and the owners are doing what is right for every dog owner in this country! I hope the Bill A4597 does get passed! We need laws to protect our pets!

  43. Samantha says:

    Another thing… I know the landscaper was trying to make a living, but he broke the law! If you are making a living as a bartender and someone under age comes into your place of work and asks you for a drink and you do not card that person YOU the BARTENDER will go to JAIL! It does not matter if you are working to feed your kids or not you still broke the law and will go to jail! The landscaper broke the law and needs to do time for it!

  44. Hayley says:

    About the question that you put asking why the immigrant needs rabies shots even though the dog’s vaccinations are current - - even current vaccinations have a margin of error when it comes to doing their jobs, however slight.


Close
E-mail It