Archive
Pit Bulls
Note: This is another article that I wrote years ago. But this article reflects another issue that has yet to be resolved. Since I wrote the initial article, hundreds of Americans have been maimed and killed by Pits or Pit mixes. Yet government action to regulate or ban the breed has stagnated. As you read this article there will be more dog-attack incidents reported in the media and, as often as not, the dog will be identified as a Pit or Pit mix.
Pit Bull Wars
The political battles being waged among Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are acerbic in mainstream and alternative media and vitriolic and even disgusting in social media. The name calling and personal attacks have risen to unprecedented levels with the proliferation of social media.
Take these battles, enhance them with steroids, and you have the Pit Bull Wars.
Although initially fought with competing studies and in a few governmental forums, the Pit Bull Wars have moved largely to the web and other social media.
There are a multitude of websites on either side of the issue.
The views of Pit Bull owners and advocates are reflected in websites such as pitbulllovers.com, Pit Bull Rescue Central (pbrc.net) , badrap.org and many others.
​
Advocates of stricter regulation of the breed counter with Dogsbite.org and daxtonsfriends.com, The Pit Bull Death Tracker (pitbulldeaths.info) and other related sites.
​
There is even an ongoing and direct “battle of the websites” with www.NationalPitBullVictimsawareness.org countering www.NationalPitBullAwareness.org.
The “Victims Awareness” website piggy-backed on the Pit Bull Awareness site by declaring October 24, 2015 as National Pit Bull Victims Awareness Day, after that same date had been designated as National Pit Bull Awareness Day by Pit advocates.
​
The content from web site authors on both sides of the debate can be pointed and emotional but, for the most part, is measured. It’s the public comment precipitated by these sites that can get ugly.
​
Colleen Lynn, founder of the DogsBite website after she had been mauled by a Pit, has been subjected to the vilest of name calling, including email calling her a “slut” and worse.
Hoping to insulate herself from such harassment, she initially attempted to keep her personal information from public disclosure. Pit Bullies (my term, not hers) intent on revealing her identity ultimately did so, and exposed her to the ensuing harassment. Pit Bull advocates/owners contacted her business clients to disrupt her livelihood. Others posted signs on her street stating: “Colleen Lynn, we know where you live.”
​
Jeff and Kimberly Borchardt founded the Daxton’s Friends website after his 14-month-old son was mauled and killed by Pits belonging to a babysitter. In a heart-rending narrative, he disclosed on his website his fatherly agony when first seeing his son after the attack: “The entire right side of his face was torn off…his skull was crushed…his right eye hung from its socket…”
​
A few Pit Bull owners and/or advocates responded in language as crude and disgusting as any found in any social medium. One suggested that Borchardt “Put a gun to your head and join your ugly son.” Another posted a photo of the precious 14 month old child with the caption “my dartboard..lmfao.”
In an ironic twist, former Pit Bull owners have also become the victims of vilification at the hands of Pit Bull owners/advocates. Pit owner/advocates turn on their own after a Pit mauling or killing. Owners of the culprit dog are labeled as “irresponsible” “abusive” or even “criminal” in the manner in which they raised or supervised their Pits. And these former owners are not insulated from harrassment no matter how often they previously extolled the virtues of their “babies” or their “big lug of a mutt” on YouTube Facebook or Instagram.
Coming to a Courtroom Near Yours
​
In a climate of government dereliction of responsibility, the Pit Bull Wars may, in the near future, be fought largely in the courtroom. Look in the yellow pages under attorney listings and you’ll find scores of attorneys specializing in dog bite cases. These attorneys trumpet million dollar, and even multi million dollar settlements/judgments in Pit Bull cases.
​
The father of one Pit victim has filed a lawsuit against California’s Child Protective Services alleging, among other things, that CPS was negligent in placing the child in a home with a Pit.
​
Whether or not this particular attorney argues that CPS should have known it was exposing the child to “inherently dangerous” dogs, that argument has been made in dog-bite liability cases with varied success. And because of the frequency of Pit attacks and the increasingly high media profile of Pit fatalities, the “inherently dangerous” characterization will certainly gain currency in civil courtrooms.
​
Criminal liability for Pit Bull attack deaths will be increasingly litigated in criminal courtrooms as high profile cases place pressure on local authorities. The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department has recommended that the District Attorney file criminal charges in one case. The victim's sister and caretaker should be charged with felony child endangerment, according to the recommendation.
​
It is a virtual certainty that the DA will argue that the caretaker demonstrably knew of the potential danger to the victim instead of arguing that she “should have known” because of the inherent danger Pits pose. But as these high-profile Pit deaths mount, is the “inherent danger” argument for criminal liability on the horizon?
​
As the Pit Bull Wars play out in America’s civil and criminal courts, government agencies will no longer have the luxury of doing nothing to address the Pit Bull problem. Government agencies making adoptive or foster placements may be sued for ignoring Pits in a placement household. Other government agencies, such as animal control and law enforcement agencies, may face lawsuits when “preventable” Pit attacks/deaths are attributed to their inaction.
Dog owners (and their insurers) will continue to pay for the Pit attacks with often huge settlements and judgments. And in the future, more expansive civil liability will be pursued as enterprising personal injury attorneys pursue dog shelters, rescue groups, dog breeders and Pit sellers who convey a dog that maims or kills shortly after placement.
​
As the Pit Bull Wars are fought in social media and in the courts, state and federal authorities appear content to stand on the sidelines and watch the literal and figurative blood-letting.
​
The Pit Bull Death Tracker will tick on, memorializing the annual death count. And the collateral damage of the Pit Bull Wars will be the reputations and credibility of the CDC’s Frieden and other timid authorities who address the Pit Bull Wars with clichés, specious logic and inaction.
​
BITING THE DOG THAT FEEDS HIM ?
​
Ken Phillips, a Beverly Hills, California attorney may be the preeminent “Dog Bite” attorney, not only in the state, but anywhere. He has appeared on CNN and the Today Show and has been profiled in People Magazine and the Los Angeles Times, among other publications.
​
He and his associates handle as many as 500 cases annually, and he has a $2 million dollar Pit Bull case award in his ledger.
​
A cynic might argue that Phillips, and other dog-bite attorneys have a vested interest in continued Pit Bull ownership and would oppose (privately if not publicly) legislation imposing stricter regulation of Pits. Fewer Pit Bulls, fewer lawsuits and fewer dollars in the bank.
​
But Phillips isn’t afraid to ‘bite the dog that feeds him.” In response to my inquiry, he acknowledged that he could not give a precise figure as to how many of his 500 dog bite cases annually involved Pits. But he stated that approximately two thirds of the dog bite fatalities of which he was aware involved Pits.
​
And he didn’t mince words when characterizing the temerity of authorities who are loathe to address the Pit problem. “It is absolutely immoral for legislators to ignore this obvious threat to resident’s safety.” His cases involving Pits were “always the most serious,” he stated, referring to injury and/or liability.
The rare personal injury attorney whose conscience outweighs his pocketbook?
-30-
Pit Bulls
Note: This is another article that I wrote years ago. But this article reflects another issue that has yet to be resolved. Since I wrote the initial article, hundreds of Americans have been maimed and killed by Pits or Pit mixes. Yet government action to regulate or ban the breed has stagnated. As you read this article there will be more dog-attack incidents reported in the media and, as often as not, the dog will be identified as a Pit or Pit mix.
Pit Bull Wars
The political battles being waged among Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are acerbic in mainstream and alternative media and vitriolic and even disgusting in social media. The name calling and personal attacks have risen to unprecedented levels with the proliferation of social media.
Take these battles, enhance them with steroids, and you have the Pit Bull Wars.
Although initially fought with competing studies and in a few governmental forums, the Pit Bull Wars have moved largely to the web and other social media.
There are a multitude of websites on either side of the issue.
The views of Pit Bull owners and advocates are reflected in websites such as pitbulllovers.com, Pit Bull Rescue Central (pbrc.net) , badrap.org and many others.
​
Advocates of stricter regulation of the breed counter with Dogsbite.org and daxtonsfriends.com, The Pit Bull Death Tracker (pitbulldeaths.info) and other related sites.
​
There is even an ongoing and direct “battle of the websites” with www.NationalPitBullVictimsawareness.org countering www.NationalPitBullAwareness.org.
The “Victims Awareness” website piggy-backed on the Pit Bull Awareness site by declaring October 24, 2015 as National Pit Bull Victims Awareness Day, after that same date had been designated as National Pit Bull Awareness Day by Pit advocates.
​
The content from web site authors on both sides of the debate can be pointed and emotional but, for the most part, is measured. It’s the public comment precipitated by these sites that can get ugly.
​
Colleen Lynn, founder of the DogsBite website after she had been mauled by a Pit, has been subjected to the vilest of name calling, including email calling her a “slut” and worse.
Hoping to insulate herself from such harassment, she initially attempted to keep her personal information from public disclosure. Pit Bullies (my term, not hers) intent on revealing her identity ultimately did so, and exposed her to the ensuing harassment. Pit Bull advocates/owners contacted her business clients to disrupt her livelihood. Others posted signs on her street stating: “Colleen Lynn, we know where you live.”
​
Jeff and Kimberly Borchardt founded the Daxton’s Friends website after his 14-month-old son was mauled and killed by Pits belonging to a babysitter. In a heart-rending narrative, he disclosed on his website his fatherly agony when first seeing his son after the attack: “The entire right side of his face was torn off…his skull was crushed…his right eye hung from its socket…”
​
A few Pit Bull owners and/or advocates responded in language as crude and disgusting as any found in any social medium. One suggested that Borchardt “Put a gun to your head and join your ugly son.” Another posted a photo of the precious 14 month old child with the caption “my dartboard..lmfao.”
In an ironic twist, former Pit Bull owners have also become the victims of vilification at the hands of Pit Bull owners/advocates. Pit owner/advocates turn on their own after a Pit mauling or killing. Owners of the culprit dog are labeled as “irresponsible” “abusive” or even “criminal” in the manner in which they raised or supervised their Pits. And these former owners are not insulated from harrassment no matter how often they previously extolled the virtues of their “babies” or their “big lug of a mutt” on YouTube Facebook or Instagram.
Coming to a Courtroom Near Yours
​
In a climate of government dereliction of responsibility, the Pit Bull Wars may, in the near future, be fought largely in the courtroom. Look in the yellow pages under attorney listings and you’ll find scores of attorneys specializing in dog bite cases. These attorneys trumpet million dollar, and even multi million dollar settlements/judgments in Pit Bull cases.
​
The father of one Pit victim has filed a lawsuit against California’s Child Protective Services alleging, among other things, that CPS was negligent in placing the child in a home with a Pit.
​
Whether or not this particular attorney argues that CPS should have known it was exposing the child to “inherently dangerous” dogs, that argument has been made in dog-bite liability cases with varied success. And because of the frequency of Pit attacks and the increasingly high media profile of Pit fatalities, the “inherently dangerous” characterization will certainly gain currency in civil courtrooms.
​
Criminal liability for Pit Bull attack deaths will be increasingly litigated in criminal courtrooms as high profile cases place pressure on local authorities. The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department has recommended that the District Attorney file criminal charges in one case. The victim's sister and caretaker should be charged with felony child endangerment, according to the recommendation.
​
It is a virtual certainty that the DA will argue that the caretaker demonstrably knew of the potential danger to the victim instead of arguing that she “should have known” because of the inherent danger Pits pose. But as these high-profile Pit deaths mount, is the “inherent danger” argument for criminal liability on the horizon?
​
As the Pit Bull Wars play out in America’s civil and criminal courts, government agencies will no longer have the luxury of doing nothing to address the Pit Bull problem. Government agencies making adoptive or foster placements may be sued for ignoring Pits in a placement household. Other government agencies, such as animal control and law enforcement agencies, may face lawsuits when “preventable” Pit attacks/deaths are attributed to their inaction.
Dog owners (and their insurers) will continue to pay for the Pit attacks with often huge settlements and judgments. And in the future, more expansive civil liability will be pursued as enterprising personal injury attorneys pursue dog shelters, rescue groups, dog breeders and Pit sellers who convey a dog that maims or kills shortly after placement.
​
As the Pit Bull Wars are fought in social media and in the courts, state and federal authorities appear content to stand on the sidelines and watch the literal and figurative blood-letting.
​
The Pit Bull Death Tracker will tick on, memorializing the annual death count. And the collateral damage of the Pit Bull Wars will be the reputations and credibility of the CDC’s Frieden and other timid authorities who address the Pit Bull Wars with clichés, specious logic and inaction.
​
BITING THE DOG THAT FEEDS HIM ?
​
Ken Phillips, a Beverly Hills, California attorney may be the preeminent “Dog Bite” attorney, not only in the state, but anywhere. He has appeared on CNN and the Today Show and has been profiled in People Magazine and the Los Angeles Times, among other publications.
​
He and his associates handle as many as 500 cases annually, and he has a $2 million dollar Pit Bull case award in his ledger.
​
A cynic might argue that Phillips, and other dog-bite attorneys have a vested interest in continued Pit Bull ownership and would oppose (privately if not publicly) legislation imposing stricter regulation of Pits. Fewer Pit Bulls, fewer lawsuits and fewer dollars in the bank.
​
But Phillips isn’t afraid to ‘bite the dog that feeds him.” In response to my inquiry, he acknowledged that he could not give a precise figure as to how many of his 500 dog bite cases annually involved Pits. But he stated that approximately two thirds of the dog bite fatalities of which he was aware involved Pits.
​
And he didn’t mince words when characterizing the temerity of authorities who are loathe to address the Pit problem. “It is absolutely immoral for legislators to ignore this obvious threat to resident’s safety.” His cases involving Pits were “always the most serious,” he stated, referring to injury and/or liability.
The rare personal injury attorney whose conscience outweighs his pocketbook?
-30-
The continued dearth of Black head football coaches
Note: There has been little change, for Black football coaches, since the initial article in this series was written, although there have been monumental changes in the college footbal landscape with NIL and conference alignment. Black college football coaches still await positive changes in their fortunes
Black High School Football Recruits: Do You Really Want to Shock the World
​
“Although the Black athlete
comprises a significant percentage of boots-on-the-field,
the overwhelming majority of head-coach-boots-on-the-sideline
are occupied by WHITE feet….”
You’ve seen the press conferences. A 5-star high school football recruit, with all the gravity of a White House briefing, is announcing the college he will be attending and to which he will be taking his considerable football talents. I vaguely remember one particularly memorable press conference before which the high school star announced he would “shock the world” with his choice.
Well neither I nor the world was shocked by his choice. The vast majority of those in the world didn’t know this kid and didn’t care where he played collegiate football.
But I cared where he played college football. And I was disappointed that this outstanding Black athlete chose one of the many college football factories with a white head football coach. I was hoping he’d be playing for a James Franklin, a David Shaw, a Charlie Strong, a Kevin Sumlin or any of the nation’s other talented, Black head coaches.
Yes, his choices were limited. Only approximately one in ten major college football teams had a Black head football coach when he made his decision. At one point during the 2014 college football playoff rankings, not one of the 25 listed football programs had a Black head coach.
All four of the teams in the inaugural CFB playoff had white head coaches, while the quarterback of the winning team, the offensive and defensive MVPs of the winning team and a significant number of the skill players on all four teams, were Black.
When the initial College Football Playoff rankings were released in 2015, only 2 of the 25 ranked teams had a Black football coach. All four of the top-ranked teams in the final 2015 CFP ranking have white head coaches. And, again, a significant number of the star and skill players on each ranked team were Black.
Of the 10 football players touted for the Heisman Trophy in 2014, 9 were Black. But all 9 played for white head coaches. And in 2015, once again, the majority of those in the Heisman running are Black and virtually all of them play for a white head coach.
The coaching carousel turns in 2015, but of a dozen initial new hires on the FBS level, all were white but one (kudos Syracuse). Moreover, the Black head football coaching ranks at that level have diminished even further as Mike London, late of the University of Virginia, and Ruffin McNeill, East Carolina, have lost their jobs.
A Black athlete’s choices may be limited when seeking Black head coaches at the FBS level but there are many top programs, such as Texas, Texas A&M, Penn State and Stanford with Black head coaches. A 5-star recruit would have attractive choices if he elected to follow his conscience.
With national signing day on the horizon, the message to you Black 3, 4 and 5 star recruits is this; Follow your conscience! Shock the football world by publicly pronouncing your commitment to attend a college with a Black head football coach! By doing so, you will send an unequivocal message that college football’s dismal record of hiring Black head football coaches is not acceptable.
And when you don that cap or jersey during the press conference, pull out the Longhorn, the Aggie, the Nittany Lion, the Tree, the Orange, or the logo/mascot of any school with a Black head coach. If enough 3, 4 and 5 star recruits take their talents to these programs, it won’t be long before these programs occupy the lofty stratosphere that the Ohio States, Alabamas, Oregons and Florida States occupy.
So what is the material pay-off for you if you choose to follow your conscience? Those of you who aspire to coach collegiate football after your college or NFL careers may find significantly more head coaching opportunities.
The bottom line for many college football programs, of course, is financial. If a progression of Black football stars opt for schools with Black head football coaches, there is little doubt that the football program will prosper. And if the program wins and pours money into the school’s coffers, you can be sure that schools will be interviewing and hiring more Black head coaches.
Yes, those whose oxen are gored will be screaming “racism” or worse, at such a suggestion. And the Meyers and Sabans of the football world will be expressing their “disappointment” that anyone would suggest that Black athletes might be better served by Black head football coaches.
But these realities remain: Although the Black athlete comprises a significant percentage of the boots on the field, the overwhelming majority of the head-coach-boots-on-the-sideline are occupied by white feet. Although many of these same Black athletes aspire to the NFL, the percentage of them who make the NFL is even smaller than the percentage of Black head football coaches.
And a final reality is that if these Black athletes aspire to coach at the college level in lieu of playing on Sunday—or after their brief NFL career comes to an end—they won’t have many opportunities if today’s climate persists.
Black high school athletes (and supportive parents of Black high school athletes) you have an opportunity to emulate historical Black leaders who also challenged the powers-that-be to do the right thing. You can confront a college football establishment that, decades after Black football players enriched their programs with immense football talent, has unconscionably failed to bring a significant number of Blacks into the college head coaching fraternity.
By committing to programs that have Black head football coaches, you will be making an investment in your future. You will motivate college football to do what it should have been doing long before now---interviewing and hiring infinitely qualified and deserving Black head coaches.
​
Fact Checkers: Resources for this article included the NCAA.org website, ESPN College Football Today, the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education, University of Pennsylvania, The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Black Men as College Athletes: The Real Win-Loss Record” by Shaun Harper. See, also, “Black head coaches don’t get second chances,” Alvin Reid, August 31, 2015. “Missing Men: The Lack of African-American Head Coaches in College Football by Dr. Matthew Lynch, Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 1/31/2013.
-30-