A dog story that’s really about undocumented workers … and the Second Amendment
By Gina Spadafori
December 4, 2007
Let me say this first and foremost:
I wasn’t there and neither were you.
No one know what happened with absolute certainty in that New Jersey yard, and no one knows how much of whose story is true without all doubt. And frankly, it doesn’t matter. Because if the whole Congo mess will lead not only to insurance companies thinking twice about paying off on dubious claims (not only about dog bites, but also auto accidents) but also to a recognition that a dog who protects you on your property deserves to be lauded, not killed … well, then, I guess I’m all for both.
But …
I wasn’t there and neither were you.
So what’s up with assumption that were it not for [insert profanity here] Spanish-speaking gardeners this wouldn’t have happened? I got news for you: People who speak English get bitten, too. And what’s with the idea that any dog has an absolute right to rip to bits any person (meter reader, child) who sets foot on your property, just as you have a right to shoot anyone who looks at you cross-eyed if they put a toe over your property line?
I’m a liberal gun-owning supporter of the Second Amendment — yes, we do exist — but I’d really appreciate a little more ask questions first and shoot later, circumstances permitting. And I’d prefer that people keep sensible, well-socialized dogs who aren’t primed to kill anything that wanders in their territory, dogs who save the teeth for a real threat. I’m not saying that Congo’s guilty of this, by the way, because …
I wasn’t there and neither were you.
But I am here checking the comments every day, and the day I let hate-filled and profanity-laced comments regarding anyone who speaks Spanish (or Dutch, for that matter) rule the day is the day we shut this blog down.
So knock it off. I’m for sensible laws regarding dogs — punish the deed, not the breed and all that. And I’m for people who are not certifiably crazy or convicted criminals being able to own a gun if they choose. Furthermore, if someone is threatening my life, I don’t want to got to jail for shooting them or have my dog killed for protecting me.
But I have had enough of people filling my e-mail box and our comments moderation que with hate-laden vulgarity under the assumption that if you speak Spanish, you’re an automatic threat and that everyone has a right to kill you, whether with dog or gun, the same.
It’s clear all the furor about Congo isn’t about Congo at all, but about two hot-button issues people love to get all frothy about: Gun rights and immigration.
So get frothy elsewhere on those issues. We’re a pet blog. You wanna talk about pet laws, fine. Otherwise … adios.
I think it’s unfortunate that this issue has grown to be about illiegal immigration, gun rights etc. It should be about dogs doing what dogs do - protecting their own. If people who comment on this issue could stay focused on that, then the discussion would be a lot more meaningful and could have a lot more impact on legistatures, law enforcement, and insurance companies.
Comment by Marilyn — December 4, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
I had read that this was turning into a local immigration frenzy. It’s hard to keep any blog on topic as emotions get heated and people seize the opportunity to vent. I know we werent’ there; but just as with any case in the legal system, one must weigh the evidence as carefully and fairly as possible.
Not sure how guns entered into this. My opinion is still that the man -whatever his status- deserved to have his medical bills paid, and any dog should be able to defend his owner without fear of penalty.
Comment by Carol — December 4, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
The gun thing factors in (according to the four-letter commentors I’m moderating) because dog equals gun. You have a right (the argument goes) to shoot someone on your property, and your dog has a right (the argument goes) to bite someone on your property.
Not arguing the case either way, just sharing the info from the comments I’m not clearing until the posters in question can learn to make their argument without every other word being a profanity.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 4, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
thumbs up Gina.
No one commenting knows what really happened… there’s always LOTS more to every story than appears in the press. It’s a shame this story has brought out so much hatred.
Comment by EmilyS — December 4, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
I’m not surprised, then, at the gun=dog equation. Somewhat frightening to think people equate their “pet” with a weapon. Pet and gun ownership require responsibility. Wonder how many owners could pass that test.
Comment by Carol — December 4, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Wooo hooo, go Gina!
Comment by Christopher — December 4, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Amen. What is it about the anonymity of the net that encourages people to let vitriol fly?
The comments about the Verizon/pet napping case over on the NY Post are simply horrid - just obscene.
Comment by Carol — December 4, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Gina, I agree.
I too am a gun toting liberal!
And (horrors!) I hunt.
One of the over all problems with internet based campaigns like this is that it is really tough to seperate the wheat from the chaff. ASSUMING that all of the allegations are true one would have to side with the dog but like you said, we were not there…
But that is also part of the problem. Neither were members of law enforcement or the insurance company.
I get emails from an old school chum now in AZ and about every third one is about how all those damned illegals are going to get all of our social security payment. Never mind that you cant get the payments unless you pay in in the first place and having more people paying in on the front end the fund’s solvency will be extended far into the future. And, the ones that are paying their FICA taxes are not the problem… Its the ones that aren’t. But never mind to him. Reality doesn’t matter when you have a red blanket like illegals at which to rant.
But I digress. Frankly I thought that story about the cop who shot the dog for “rough play” was much worse but I got jumped on for that. At some point you just have to have a little faith in the system that the right decission will be made although it might take the wisdom of Solomon to sort out.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
“the gun=dog equation”. Haven’t we all met people who have a dog only “for protection” and make it clear that the dog has no intrinsic value as a sentient being or family companion, but only as a live burglar alarm? Some parts of the Congo coverage made it sound like that was part of what was going on, but hard to tell for sure, since, as you point out, I wasn’t there.
What is really scary to me are the, fortunately, very rare occasions that I have met someone who has purchased a “guard” dog trained to attack, who has no training themselves and turns the dog loose on their property at night. Talk about a having a loaded gun around. The liability alone….
Too bad, Gina, that you are having to waste time screening the blog comments, but it seems that it is, in fact, the anonymity of the net that enables some people to go off the deep end. It’s too bad you can’t punch a button to reverse the message and blow a few circuits in the sender’s computer. ;-)
Comment by Susan Fox — December 4, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Gina,
Thank you for screening the comments. I don’t go back to sites that are filled with hate, accusations and profanity.
Comment by kb — December 4, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
I’m appalled that this has become a racial issue!
I guess that’s because there aren’t any white or black people that are afraid of dogs (except of course, my father, my best friend, her best friend…oh nevermind).
Comment by 2CatMom — December 5, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Gina,
Am so sorry, you have to be exposed to that type of posting/E mails.
I still have a hard time connecting gun ownership with the Pongo incident. A salvage yard with a couple of patrolling Dobermans might fit this remote association.
Also surprised that this site with their unbiased/objective blogs gets this type of ignorant hateful comments/Emails. Responsible loving pet owners(like most posters here) are generally a cut above.
However, the general media often biased reporting plays John Q Public like a fine violin and foster these type of comments IMO.
Sometimes I wonder, if reporters are graded by their superiors based on the amount of comments/hits their article receives. Hence the often not very objective articles, rather “the get your goat” type..
The racist association, illegal alien does not surprise me. Still think alien as opposed to immigrant is so funny. Always thought that an alien is something/someone from another planet/solar system ala “men in black”.
As an immigrant( legal from Western Europe) I had my own funny experience in this true story. First time I filled out a job application, it had this strange ” what race” question on it. Never saw that in Europe. I answered “human”. Did not get the job either LOL.
Comment by Serijna — December 5, 2007 @ 3:12 pm