Re: Father On Trial For Son's Dog Mauling Death

On Mar 20, 12:49 am, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I love the part where the defense attorney claims the father has been
punished enough because his son died.  Man, why couldn't every drunk
driver who killed a friend or spouse use that one?

Oh, right, it only remotely works when you kill your own kid. And
usually only if you're the mother.

Speaking of which - did she know that dog was chained up and let the
kid be around it anyway? But isn't charged?

Though not mentioned in this article, the defense attorney in his
opening likened this case to prosecuting someone who tore the tags off
of a mattress.

Bonus points: the most the idiot faces is probation, according to
state sentencing guidelines.

Could the family have known the dog was dangerous?  The dog ("Face", I
guess they named him for what he liked to chew off) had previously
attacked a contractor, who was awarded $22K for his injuries.  That
little fact isn't mentioned in the article below, or in most of the
press stories about this case.

Fatal attacks are on the rise, perhaps as breeds like pit bulls and
rottweilers become more popular.  While as recently as 20 years ago
there were fewer than ten per year, last year there were 33 fatal dog


Bo Raxo

Wednesday was a very emotional day for a Minneapolis father.
In a Hennepin County courtroom, Zachary King Senior described how the
family dog mauled his son to death.
The family's pit bull bit 7-year old Zach King Junior on the neck last

His father now faces a second degree manslaughter charge for allegedly
not doing more to prevent the attack.

As he should. You have a *pitbull* dog that's already attacked once,
to the tune of $22k, and you continue to keep it in a house with your

In court, King broke down in tears several times, and at one point he
buried his face in a tissue and he cried as he explained what happened
the day of the tragedy.

He said in court that his son was unconscious on the floor with a
small pool of blood near his neck.
King told the judge that moments after the attack, he carried his son
to safety then shot and killed the pit bull.

He should have done that after it attacked the first person.

The dog had been tied to a pole in the basement. Prosecutors said it
was on a short leash for 17 hours and that contributed to the dog's
aggression. The defense attorney said that wasn't proven during the

Keeping a dog chained in a basement for any period of time indicates a
very bad situation. Either they knew it was vicious or they were too
stupid to properly care for any pets. Or both.

The prosecutor said that King knew his dog was dangerous but the
defense attorney said King had no reason to believe the dog would act
so violently.

No, he *hoped* the dog wouldn't attack anyone else and he hoped wrong.

The defense attorney said King has been punished enough
because his son died.

Not nearly enough, in this case. I daresay the other family members
might disagree with the DA on this point too.

"His position was made perfectly clear in his testimony that this was
an accident, only an accident ... it could never have been predicted,"
said Craig Cascarano, defense attorney.

"It was well known that this dog was dangerous ... it had bitten seven
people previously, including Zach Junior," said Mike Freeman, Hennepin
Co. Attorney.

King waived his right to a jury trial. So a judge will issue a verdict
in a few weeks. If convicted, King faces probation -- not jail time.

He should be barred from ever owning any kind of pet ever again, not
even a Chia pet. And sterilized.