So this was reported on Monday in Norco, and after reading all kinds of different versions of the same story, there’s numerous things about it that seem kind of “off.”

The first deception comes right out of the gate when the article claims, “toddler survives attack by the family Pit Bull in her home”… As you can see by the video stills below, “Diamond” is a CHAINED dog who, by any decent ownership measures, wouldn’t then be considered a “family” dog. Going beyond the psychological aspect of a dog lacking interaction and love and inclusion, chained dogs can potentially become territorial, and they can also become more defensive in the moment, due to not being able to flee. The video also reveals an outside doghouse, which probably means that the dog actually lived and slept outside. I obviously don’t know that for sure, but signs point in that direction. Furthermore, the “attack” didn’t happen IN THE HOME, it allegedly happened IN THE YARD. Funny how Leticia Juarez plays subtle games with reality…

Now this is the same story, just coming from a different outlet. Clearly the quotes don’t jive with the picture being painted by the initial ABC article. As you can see below, fire officials claim that the girl “avoided major bite wounds.” The sheriff’s officials then confirmed that she “suffered no puncture wounds or major bites.” Hmm… If this was an actual attack then how in the hell were there no bite or puncture wounds? Especially if we are to believe the first article when it states numerous times that the dog was clamped down, locked in, would not let go, was pulling at the girl, dragging and flinging her around the yard, required its jaws be pried open, etc. What really happened?

And then there’s the obvious questions, like… Is it the best choice to, under these circumstances, have chosen someone who is deaf to babysit? The babysitter isn’t the mom, and by the sounds of the article, may have just recently met the family. I know that she was speaking as if she knew the history of the dog, but the article claims that the family just recently moved into the area. That’s a huge gray spot for me. I’m in no way trying to insinuate that deaf people (or others with disabilities) can’t be wonderful parents, they certainly can. But this babysitter wasn’t the parent, and isn’t going to just get my benefit of the doubt that she had the over-careful characteristics that any mother or father usually instinctively has with their own children. Secondly, if all of these insinuations about the dog are even remotely true, how in the world was that toddler ever put in a position to be able to make her way into the backyard unsupervised? That’s clearly the fault of an irresponsible babysitter. Making things murkier is the fact that this babysitter was deaf, so she couldn’t have heard any potential noises or cries. Had this been a “vicious” attack, like the news often claims (and does here), any bigger dog (of any breed) would have likely disfigured (or worse) a child that small in a short amount of time. For a deaf person, not having that key sense could really cause you to miss that small window of correcting a huge mistake like, say, allowing a toddler to randomly waltz into a yard with a chained (and possibly unsocialized or territorial) dog. Oh, but that’s just me trying to be responsible, and yet, I don’t even have kids… I do have 2 really great Pit Bulls though, but you know, Pit Bull owners aren’t supposed to ever be “responsible,” right? Right. I guess I just busted that notion up. Anyways, onto some of the comments…

^You don’t say?

^Yup, just a dose of the broad-brushing hatefulness.

^Well, the first person in the world to ever undergo a partial face transplant was because of her Labrador chewing off the lower part of her face. It’s been claimed by some that the Lab may have just been frantically trying to wake her up after she took loads of pills and passed out, and that may or may not be true… But Lord knows a Pit Bull would never get the benefit of that angle, even if it was genuinely plausible. Point is, hate to break it to ya but there’s aggressive examples that you can pull from each and every breed or type of dog. That’s just the way it is, and it usually stems from both treatment and circumstances surrounding its environment. Here’s a Labrador that attacked a 9-year-old boy, requiring hundreds of stitches to his head. Here’s a Labrador that attacked 3 children in Virginia after they reached for his collar.

Finally, I came across this totally separate article tonight regarding an incident that just happened in Bakersfield, CA. It’s title references “2” attacks, the 2nd being the one from Norco (from above) that I already wrote about…

^This Bakersfield portion of the article is IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED because there is NO SUCH THING as a “125 pound Pit Bull.” Those don’t exist. Sorry. The photo provided with the article isn’t the actual dog either, rather a stock photo that these kinds of journalists will commonly include instead. All in all it’s just another disservice to Pit Bulls everywhere, by having their name and image inappropriately slandered all over this particular story. That’s a complete shame. Regardless–whatever kind of dog was actually involved, you still see the common traits (for an incident) here as well… 3-year-old child left alone, dog unneutered, etc. People and their irresponsibilities, they have far-reaching effects and can be devastating to humans and dogs alike.