Sperm Edwards Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2597684 Updated: Sep. 21, 2006, 5:42 PM ET Steelers LB Porter faces fines after his dogs kill horse WEXFORD, Pa. -- Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker Joey Porter is being cited by animal control officers after his dogs got off his property and killed a miniature horse on a nearby farm. Porter lives in Pine Township, north of the city, but animal control officials say Porter's animals, though licensed in his hometown of Bakersfield, Calif., are not licensed locally. Northern Regional Police say Porter's dogs, a pit bull and a mastiff, got loose on Tuesday, though police are not sure how because his yard is fenced. Porter has already apologized to the family whose horse was killed and now plans to send the dogs back to a kennel in California. Porter says the dogs were raised to be pets, not attack dogs. Porter was cited for harboring dangerous dogs, failure to confine the dogs, and failure to have the dogs licensed. The fines carry several hundred dollars in potential fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Joey Porter is an ahole..enough said!!!! by the way sperm..I have always been a big fan of your artwork and your posting abilities..it's an honor to be in your presence;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 He gets fined for harboring dangerous dogs, failure to confine the dogs, and failure to have the dogs licensed, but there is no fine for having his dogs kill a horse? That doesn't make any sense to me, if you're going to fine him, fine him for the crime, plus all the other petty things he did with it. I feel sorry for that family, Porter is a murderer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Someone should shoot Joey Porter in the a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Someone should shoot Joey Porter in the a$$. No need to worry my man. I took care of that a couple of years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 He gets fined for harboring dangerous dogs, failure to confine the dogs, and failure to have the dogs licensed, but there is no fine for having his dogs kill a horse? That doesn't make any sense to me, if you're going to fine him, fine him for the crime, plus all the other petty things he did with it. I feel sorry for that family, Porter is a murderer! Depends on the laws of the town or county. Actually its rare for a dog to kill a horse but in this case the horse was smaller than the dogs. However in many venues the dogs would be put down if it was shown that they acted that way previously. In some venues the first time would be enough. The only time the owner would be held on manslaughter charges if the dogs killed a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 Someone should shoot Joey Porter in the a$$. POTW NOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 poor horse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boozer76 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 He gets fined for harboring dangerous dogs, failure to confine the dogs, and failure to have the dogs licensed, but there is no fine for having his dogs kill a horse? That doesn't make any sense to me, if you're going to fine him, fine him for the crime, plus all the other petty things he did with it. I feel sorry for that family, Porter is a murderer! The goverment does not fine a person for tangible losses of another person. That's what civil court is for. The horse owner will be paid quite handsomely and, quite frankly, they'll probably be happy that their horse was killed by Joey porter's dogs and not some other brkoe ass schlep once they receive their handsome payoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 His dogs killed a baby horse and you all bash on Porter? No matter if he didn't do this & that the dogs still did the killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 http://www.themightymjd.com/2006/09/21/a-letter-from-joey-porters-pit-bull/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 His dogs killed a baby horse and you all bash on Porter? No matter if he didn't do this & that the dogs still did the killing. you have to be responsible for the dogs you have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 His dogs killed a baby horse and you all bash on Porter? No matter if he didn't do this & that the dogs still did the killing. When you get a pit bull you have to know that they are capable of doing just what happened and its your responsibility to see that its properly confined. He probably got it for protection which is quite understandable but nevertheless he is responsible for its actions. In my county a year or so ago a guy had 3 of them and they escaped and mauled an old woman to death. The guy got sent up for about 20 years. They tightened the laws so that if a dog kills another ones animal now they putdown the dog. It can be appealed but that's the law now. I was actually surprised a mastiff was involved because they are usually afraid of their own shadow and very docile. However dogs are pack animals and will follow another one's lead. So he gets to ship them back to Calif where they can break out of the kennel and do it all over again. They should have been put down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 When you get a pit bull you have to know that they are capable of doing just what happened and its your responsibility to see that its properly confined. He probably got it for protection which is quite understandable but nevertheless he is responsible for its actions. In my county a year or so ago a guy had 3 of them and they escaped and mauled an old woman to death. The guy got sent up for about 20 years. They tightened the laws so that if a dog kills another ones animal now they putdown the dog. It can be appealed but that's the law now. I was actually surprised a mastiff was involved because they are usually afraid of their own shadow and very docile. However dogs are pack animals and will follow another one's lead. So he gets to ship them back to Calif where they can break out of the kennel and do it all over again. They should have been put down. its so sad, especially that they would have to be put down because some idiot didn't know how to train them right, or did know, but trained them in a way to be evil anyways. happens all the time with pitt bulls, not because they are really any more violent than other dogs, but because of the way they were trained. sad sad sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickkotite Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 His dogs killed a baby horse and you all bash on Porter? No matter if he didn't do this & that the dogs still did the killing. thats not the point. it speaks volumes about what kind of a-hole porter is. the fact that he only had those two breeds means hes a punk who likes the image of strong killer dogs. hes not some kind soul who adopted a chiuahah. secondly, the fact that the dogs were wild and aggrssive means that porter never loved them. if you smother a dog with love it would never develop a killer instinct. the breed doesnt matter. finally, porter was irresponsible by letting his dogs get free. mine never do. plus, minewouldnt /couldnt hurt anything. porter is like an irresponsible dictator who is careless with nukes thats why porter is a dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 its so sad, especially that they would have to be put down because some idiot didn't know how to train them right, or did know, but trained them in a way to be evil anyways. happens all the time with pitt bulls, not because they are really any more violent than other dogs, but because of the way they were trained. sad sad sad. Pit bulls are more violent than other dogs. Even docile ones sometimes turn on their owners. No offense to any pet owners (and the individual dogs they might own), but there is no reason to have a pit bull as a pet. thats not the point. it speaks volumes about what kind of a-hole porter is. the fact that he only had those two breeds means hes a punk who likes the image of strong killer dogs. hes not some kind soul who adopted a chiuahah. secondly, the fact that the dogs were wild and aggrssive means that porter never loved them. if you smother a dog with love it would never develop a killer instinct. the breed doesnt matter. finally, porter was irresponsible by letting his dogs get free. mine never do. plus, minewouldnt /couldnt hurt anything. porter is like an irresponsible dictator who is careless with nukes thats why porter is a dick Can't argue with anything here. You must be a fellow dog-owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickkotite Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 why couldnt them dogs have mauled rosie odonell to death she has more meat anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 thats not the point. it speaks volumes about what kind of a-hole porter is. the fact that he only had those two breeds means hes a punk who likes the image of strong killer dogs. hes not some kind soul who adopted a chiuahah. secondly, the fact that the dogs were wild and aggrssive means that porter never loved them. if you smother a dog with love it would never develop a killer instinct. the breed doesnt matter. finally, porter was irresponsible by letting his dogs get free. mine never do. plus, minewouldnt /couldnt hurt anything. porter is like an irresponsible dictator who is careless with nukes thats why porter is a dick What a load of BS. His dogs killed another animal and it means he's a dick? There a plenty of reasons we know Porter is a dick. None of them have to do with his dog. I agree, he should be held accountable for the dogs getting loose, it sounds like he agrees. I know several people with pit bulls. At least four are women who got them at shelters because nobody else would take them. I guess they are punks that want to show the image of strong killer dogs. My own dog was completely docile. Would sit on anybody's lap, etc., but if it got hold of a rabbit or chicken running across the property it usually wound up dead. You can ask anybody that met my dog if he was "smothered with love." No dog ever got more love and no dog exhibited less agression with people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Division Marduk Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 why couldnt them dogs have mauled rosie odonell to death she has more meat anyway Hmm, let's see. Just think of all the screaming, fighting, slobbering, foaming at the mouth and general gore. Really nasty. Rabies is a truly horrific disease. Why would you want to infect those dogs with it in such an inhumane way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 What a load of BS. His dogs killed another animal and it means he's a dick? There a plenty of reasons we know Porter is a dick. None of them have to do with his dog. I agree, he should be held accountable for the dogs getting loose, it sounds like he agrees. I know several people with pit bulls. At least four are women who got them at shelters because nobody else would take them. I guess they are punks that want to show the image of strong killer dogs. My own dog was completely docile. Would sit on anybody's lap, etc., but if it got hold of a rabbit or chicken running across the property it usually wound up dead. You can ask anybody that met my dog if he was "smothered with love." No dog ever got more love and no dog exhibited less agression with people. 27 I ran a shelter up in NY before I moved to Florida. I agree about the pit bulls. A lot of it has to do with the training. We had a couple that were sweethearts and we kept them as long as possible because no one wanted them. Not only the rep they have but just tell your insurance co. you have a pit bull and see what happens. My wife and i cried when we had to put them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 What a load of BS. His dogs killed another animal and it means he's a dick? There a plenty of reasons we know Porter is a dick. None of them have to do with his dog. I agree, he should be held accountable for the dogs getting loose, it sounds like he agrees. I know several people with pit bulls. At least four are women who got them at shelters because nobody else would take them. I guess they are punks that want to show the image of strong killer dogs. My own dog was completely docile. Would sit on anybody's lap, etc., but if it got hold of a rabbit or chicken running across the property it usually wound up dead. You can ask anybody that met my dog if he was "smothered with love." No dog ever got more love and no dog exhibited less agression with people. It's Friday & I'm not reading right. But is is your suggestion that Porter rescues pit bulls & lavishes love and affection on them? Everyone who gets a pit bull and trains it to be a killer for street cred is a thug scumbag. Don't give me any of this crap that of all the dogs Porter saw, it was only this baby pitbull puppy licking his face that he fell in love with. The breed should be outlawed as pets. Porter = scumbag. Trained his dog to be a killer scumbag. He's lucky it wasn't a person that got killed. (Only an innocent pony). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetophile Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Off-topic a bit, but I used to work in an animal hospital. You don't even want to KNOW what goes on with dogs in the bowels of the inner city of where I live. People should be shot. Really. And before anyone says how can one equate the lives of animals with the suffering of human beings, let me pre-empt and say I don't. The point missed is the larger equation: If they can treat a dog that way, I shudder to think how they treat their own children. It's a pretty fair indicator into the heart of a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 It's Friday & I'm not reading right. But is is your suggestion that Porter rescues pit bulls & lavishes love and affection on them? Everyone who gets a pit bull and trains it to be a killer for street cred is a thug scumbag. Don't give me any of this crap that of all the dogs Porter saw, it was only this baby pitbull puppy licking his face that he fell in love with. The breed should be outlawed as pets. Porter = scumbag. Trained his dog to be a killer scumbag. He's lucky it wasn't a person that got killed. (Only an innocent pony). It's Friday and maybe I'm not writing right either. Plus, it's 6 hours later here. My suggestion is simply that the dogs didn't necessarily kill because they were "trained to be killer scumbags." Maybe they were. I wouldn't doubt it with all the other crap Joey Porter has done. Only one dog was a pit. My point was just because somebody has a pit bull doesn't mean they are a savage out to prove their manhood. According to the report I read the dogs were fenced in and they weren't sure how they got out. Animals will kill other animals without being trained to kill. Joey Porter is assuredly a scumbag, but owning a pit bull isn't what proved it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetophile Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 "Who let the dogs out?" Someone had to say it. He had them fenced in! That's like saying I have guns that aren't loaded in an unlocked gun cabinet. "The guns weren't loaded. It isn't my fault someone else put ammunition in them when I wasn't home." Whatever. Pits are weapons in the hands of the wrong people, so if he loved his dogs, it would have been like Attica over there. They didn't take down that mini-horse to feed themselves, either. Often once a dog gets a taste for live blood, they start running deer, other dogs, livestock, anything. Irresponsible of him to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjets Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 mine never do. plus, minewouldnt /couldnt hurt anything. a squirell could kick your dogs ass.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Pit bulls are more violent than other dogs. Even docile ones sometimes turn on their owners. No offense to any pet owners (and the individual dogs they might own), but there is no reason to have a pit bull as a pet. Can't argue with anything here. You must be a fellow dog-owner. no they aren't. they are just stronger that is all. they are not more violent. do you realize how many smaller dogs attack way more than pit bulls? it is just that pit bulls are bigger and have that lockable jaw. BUT! and a big one at that...pit bulls need to be trained correctly, if they aren't, they can be very violent. but rarely do they really attack an owner or something...you just hear about it more because they cause alot more damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFan4Life Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Pit bulls are more violent than other dogs. Even docile ones sometimes turn on their owners. No offense to any pet owners (and the individual dogs they might own), but there is no reason to have a pit bull as a pet. Can't argue with anything here. You must be a fellow dog-owner. that has to be the most igonorant thing i have ever read on any message board ever..The studys show that the bully breeds which consist of american pitbull terriers and american staffordshire have better temperment scores than german shepherds..Its not the dog its the owner and how you raise your animals..I have pitbulls and have had them for about 10 years, they have been raised around my children and other pets in the house and not once have they ever once snapped at my kids or ever showed any evil intentions..You may know about football but you sure as **** dont know **** about pets and how to raise them obviously..And I really dont care if i get banned cause the bs that this dude wrote was just wrong and ignorant to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 that has to be the most igonorant thing i have ever read on any message board ever..The studys show that the bully breeds which consist of american pitbull terriers and american staffordshire have better temperment scores than german shepherds..Its not the dog its the owner and how you raise your animals..I have pitbulls and have had them for about 10 years, they have been raised around my children and other pets in the house and not once have they ever once snapped at my kids or ever showed any evil intentions..You may know about football but you sure as **** dont know **** about pets and how to raise them obviously..And I really dont care if i get banned cause the bs that this dude wrote was just wrong and ignorant to say the least Wow. Either that is really ignorant or you haven't been on too many message boards. You do know there was a guy here who thinks that Bollinger is going to the HOF? I wouldn't sweat being banned. This place is cool like that and I'm pretty sure sperm is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFan4Life Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Its just that people say its the breed and its not its the owner.. maybe porter didnt know how to train his dogs...How many other breeds of dogs attack people, but it doesnt get sensationalized in the media like if it was a pitbull. I work at a rescue organization that deals with only pitbulls so to hear things like that just bother me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetCane Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 The studys show that the bully breeds which consist of american pitbull terriers and american staffordshire have better temperment scores than german shepherds..Its not the dog its the owner and how you raise your animals... I remember a study sponsored by litigation groups that showed that two-thirds of dog attacks on humans in the stated time period were by pit bulls and rottweilers. However, notwithstanding that result, the highest court in NY ruled a few years ago that in keeping with the "one-bite" rule, courts would not classify particular breeds as inherently "dangerous or with vicious propensities" for the purpose of a lawsuit or hearing. This was a victory for dog owners like yourself, who responsibly raised and socialized these dogs. Then again, a healthy distrust of strange animals (especially if unrestrained) is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Howley III Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 It just seems to me that people get a pit bull to either 1. Prove a point that they are not vicious and it becomes their raison d'ter ("Hey everybody, I have a pit bull! And see! He's a gentle, loving animal!") 2. To kill lunge at the throat or the groin of anybody who enters their drug stash turf. The breed has a violent disposition. Anybody who doesn't recognize that because their Pit Bull is gentle and sweet, is being willfully ignorant. It's a breed that attracts low class people to own them, and low class people tend to have an inability to nurture anything. Look what they do to their own children. Then they get a dog that has a predisposition for aggression, and they beat the sht out of it and abuse it, and the thing one day goes schizo. Anybody who has walked through an inner city neighborhood, and has been approached by a 120 lb pit bull with no tags and his balls a swinging back and forth and didn't get an "uneasy" feeling, or try to get out of it's path nice and slow so as not to startle the fcking thing, is lying. You don't get that feeling from a stray mut or even a loose German Shepherd. Let's stop with the nonsense already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 that has to be the most igonorant thing i have ever read on any message board ever..The studys show that the bully breeds which consist of american pitbull terriers and american staffordshire have better temperment scores than german shepherds..Its not the dog its the owner and how you raise your animals..I have pitbulls and have had them for about 10 years, they have been raised around my children and other pets in the house and not once have they ever once snapped at my kids or ever showed any evil intentions..You may know about football but you sure as **** dont know **** about pets and how to raise them obviously..And I really dont care if i get banned cause the bs that this dude wrote was just wrong and ignorant to say the least Easy big guy. Talking about animals can be as confrontational as talking football. I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you. Its all in how you raise them and the love you give them. Heck my dogs walk amongst my horses and neither one cares about the other. If I can find it in my file and I'll post a pix of my small italian greyhound sleeping on my mastiff. Don't worry about being banned. If Max hasn't banned me yet your very safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 I remember a study sponsored by litigation groups that showed that two-thirds of dog attacks on humans in the stated time period were by pit bulls and rottweilers. However, notwithstanding that result, the highest court in NY ruled a few years ago that in keeping with the "one-bite" rule, courts would not classify particular breeds as inherently "dangerous or with vicious propensities" for the purpose of a lawsuit or hearing. This was a victory for dog owners like yourself, who responsibly raised and socialized these dogs. Then again, a healthy distrust of strange animals (especially if unrestrained) is a good thing. that is only because pit bull and rottweilers are so much bigger, and cause much more damage and therefore are reported more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oktaren Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 It just seems to me that people get a pit bull to either 1. Prove a point that they are not vicious and it becomes their raison d'ter ("Hey everybody, I have a pit bull! And see! He's a gentle, loving animal!") 2. To kill lunge at the throat or the groin of anybody who enters their drug stash turf. The breed has a violent disposition. Anybody who doesn't recognize that because their Pit Bull is gentle and sweet, is being willfully ignorant. It's a breed that attracts low class people to own them, and low class people tend to have an inability to nurture anything. Look what they do to their own children. Then they get a dog that has a predisposition for aggression, and they beat the sht out of it and abuse it, and the thing one day goes schizo. Anybody who has walked through an inner city neighborhood, and has been approached by a 120 lb pit bull with no tags and his balls a swinging back and forth and didn't get an "uneasy" feeling, or try to get out of it's path nice and slow so as not to startle the fcking thing, is lying. You don't get that feeling from a stray mut or even a loose German Shepherd. Let's stop with the nonsense already. sorry you are nuts. and i have NEVER owned a pit bull. i have known a few, a few were good and a few weren't. but they are only bad because of their owners. you must really know some ****ty people if thats what you think about pit bulls and their owners. its definitely a falsity that you only know as the truth because obviously you hang out in the wrong areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFan4Life Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 It just seems to me that people get a pit bull to either 1. Prove a point that they are not vicious and it becomes their raison d'ter ("Hey everybody, I have a pit bull! And see! He's a gentle, loving animal!") 2. To kill lunge at the throat or the groin of anybody who enters their drug stash turf. The breed has a violent disposition. Anybody who doesn't recognize that because their Pit Bull is gentle and sweet, is being willfully ignorant. It's a breed that attracts low class people to own them, and low class people tend to have an inability to nurture anything. Look what they do to their own children. Then they get a dog that has a predisposition for aggression, and they beat the sht out of it and abuse it, and the thing one day goes schizo. Anybody who has walked through an inner city neighborhood, and has been approached by a 120 lb pit bull with no tags and his balls a swinging back and forth and didn't get an "uneasy" feeling, or try to get out of it's path nice and slow so as not to startle the fcking thing, is lying. You don't get that feeling from a stray mut or even a loose German Shepherd. Let's stop with the nonsense already. really so now its a class thing?..how about its a training thing and about being responsible for your animals, not making a class or race thing about it..what are you an undercover racist now? How about thiss read this and tell me what kind of dog u think did this http://www.news4jax.com/news/9865365/detail.html that was done by a labrador retriever..which proves my point that its not a class or a breed thing , its an owner responsibility problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.