Update on that rottie case

Hurray!!!
laugh.gif
tongue.gif
cool.gif
 
bonny you are starting to really show how immature, narrow minded you really are every post i have read by you has been argumentative why???? it has been proved that your FACTS are actually FICTION and still you argue about it why??????you claim to have worked with horses and dogs for soo long but still you lack knowledge in natural animal behaviour in the stallion post you claim taking a rottie out in public is more dangerous how????you stand a lot better chance in controling a dog than a stallion and a stallion could do a lot more damage. you need to accept that you were wrong rather than keep attacking people on here.
 
sarcasim is the lowest form of wit!!! you cant save face by being sarcastic you could have done a lot earlier had you said ok i was wrong it takes a bigger person to admit they were wrong than the very small person who attacks and posts crap like you have done. you attacked tia for so called not answering your posts maybe you need to practise what you preach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
what about all the witnesses and if the dog did nothing aggressive why the armed police ? or do you think thats normal when somebody collaspes in the street ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because maybe one of the witnesses was someone like you who saw it was a Rottie and assumed that it was attacking the man.... the police would have to be prepared in case it was true!!

Poor man and poor dog... I am just glad that the dog has been exhonerated from killing him...

Funny that the original story was all over the news papers and TV but this bit hasn't been!!
 
don't see why you feel the need but you are ranting, I wasn't wrong about anything I said, on the whole I was expressing an opinion and trying to have a resonable debate. You're not being reasonable or having a debate you're just writing rubbish. why not stop ??????
 
Bonny, stop looking like a petulant child, save some grace and log off.
You announced that they can't know he had a stroke before the attack. Yes they can. It's been a very significant part of criminal investigation for a very long time, being able to place the order injuries were recieved.

You announced the dog killed the owner. Just because the man was taken to hospital with severe head injuries does not mean he wasn't already dying of a stroke.

You announced Tia to be stupid, you're picking on the wrong person, so save yourself the embarrasement and back off.

RIP Man and dog. Such a shame that last act of loyalty was rewarded with death.
 
the whole crap of you telling the forum it was fact that the dog killed the man well thats not an opinion is it again you are attacking is that because you are WRONG do you want a a bigger spade to help you dig your way out of that massive hole????
 
you need to read over what was written, i never mentioned anything about the man having a stroke, that was somebody else.
I also certainly didn't accuse tia of being stupid, in fact i said the opposite. I asked her some questions thats all
I think we should all wait for the inquest , okay
 
It is rather bizzare that you are very quick to point out anything you feel you havent said yet refuse to aknowledge the many things you did say. You have proven yourself to be very narrow minded! now you say lets wait for the inquest! jeeeeessss! when everyone else was saying originally lets wait to see what the outcome is, you were very clear & argued with everyone that the dog had killed its owner. make yer bl**dy mind up fgs!
 
whats bizzare ? I was accused of something that somebody else said so i pointed out that it wasn't me. I can't believe how petty this has become, for the last time surely people can have different point of views without all the personal atacks ??? why is that narrow minded ??? or is that just anybody who dosen't agree with you ???
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't wrong about anything I said, on the whole I was expressing an opinion and trying to have a resonable debate. You're not being reasonable or having a debate you're just writing rubbish. why not stop ??????

[/ QUOTE ]
No you weren't expressing an opinion Bonny. You are not open to debate, you tell us like it is and claim your "opinions" as facts. Well they are not facts and you were proven wrong. The dog did not kill the man.

Here are quotes of comments you made on the initial post:
[ QUOTE ]

I can't believe that you could think thats what happened, the dog KILLED him.

----------------

The shame is that the man was bitten to death, NOT the dog trying to help that is just not possible. He died from head injuries.

-------------

I know for a fact that the dog killed him.

-------------

I didn't need to be there - it is a fact that the man was killed by his dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

And those quotes came from just Page 1 on that thread - if anyone (including Bonny; could actually be a good idea Bonny) can be bothered to read the rest of the comments again, then here is the link:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2731097/page/0/fpart/1/vc/1
 
Tia, I have not been proven wrong of anything i said anymore than the people who believe the dog did no wrong are - there are many reports of what happened, many different witness quotes etc - I certainly don't believe everything that is written in the papers which is why I keep saying lets just wait and see what comes out in the inquest. The reason why this whole sorry debate started has become so lost that it really isn't worth keeping raking it over - we are all repeating ourselves
and its just not worth it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't believe everything that is written in the papers which is why I keep saying lets just wait and see what comes out in the inquest.

[/ QUOTE ]
But you didn't keep telling us to wait and see; it was us who suggested that to you
confused.gif
. You told us repeatedly that you knew for a fact that the dog had killed the man
confused.gif
.

I also do not believe half of what I read in the papers, which is why I didn't believe that the dog killed him when reading the original link because any loving and loyal dog would would react in the same completely natural manner, as this dog did.

Anyway, that's all irrelevant now since the Coroner released a statement that the man was killed by a stroke and was not killed by the dog - Coroners don't tend to lie about their findings, therefore I think we can be pretty much be assured that this is the truth.

As I said originally, it was a very sad event for both concerned.
 
Tia, did you read any of the original newspaper reports ? witness statements etc ? like i said we are just repeating ourselves but there is no way that is the actions of a loyal and loving dog. Please don't answer that, i know what you think and you know what i think, lets just agree to disagree. ok
 
Don't really wanna get involved in the debate/slanging match but thought i'd just say that my dad slipped and broke his leg whilst out walking dogs on Sunday. The first thing one of the dogs did when she realised he was injured was sit on him and start licking his hands and face. Luckily my mum was there so got her off and put both dogs on the lead so my dad could have help.
But she knew something was up, that my dad was hurt, and she probably thought she was helping and protecting him. If my mum wasn't there she may have taken the protection to far and acted nasty to anyone trying to help my dad.
Maybe this is what the rottie did. If people were rushing round to help it may have frightened the dog who thought it was helping his owner, and may have appeared aggresive. Also remember little nips by a dog can still produce a lot of blood and could have made it look like the dog had savaged the man when it hadn't.
 
Poor man and his poor dog. Sadly we're all too quick to "shoot now, ask questions later" where these big dogs are concerned.

Reading the news article, I would assume anyone falling onto a hard pavement unconscious would suffer facial and head injuries owing to not using their hands to break their fall.

I wonder if witnesses saw him face down simply with injuries consistent with falling onto a tarmac pavement. His dog standing over him anxious about him probably led to some witnesses mistakenly linking facial injuries + dog = attack.

I don't know about any of you, but if I've ever scratched or cut myself, my Cocker Spaniel seems desperate to lick the wound. Not because he wants to taste my blood, I will add, but because this is how they deal with their own wounds. They are merely trying to clean it for you. Is there a chance the dog was doing this to his owner?
 
Im in danger of being rude here but Bonny - just be quiet. You do not know more than the coroner and that's a fact.

To the person who said they didn't know how people could detect wether a person suffered a stroke before or after the dog got involved - isn't that the point of the people who perform post mortems..havent you seen CSI?!!!
laugh.gif
 
yawn, yawn,yawn
I was going to say something about no one having anything better to do than repeat themselves or other people - but seeing as I'm still responding to it I'd better not !!
 
That's a fantastic article and really worrying, well I suppose it's nothing we didn't already know, but a foretaste of the world when people like Bonny get to make decisions.
 
Hi forum members
smile.gif


I actually wrote that article (Devil Dogs, Lies, Damn Lies & Media Hype)

The facts are - and these are un-emotive, un-disputable facts - the man died of a stroke. A coroner is able to tell with an incredible degree of accuracy what a person died of, even in cold case files. The dog in this scenario is almost inconsequential - the fact that it was a Rottweiler and many people, including the Police, some by-standers and of course people speculating on web forums, jumped to a certain conclusion about what happened is in no small part due to the media portrayal of this breed.

Let's not forget. This dog has been proved to have been innocent. Not only was the dog not to blame for Mr Rehill's death, it was in all likelihood a very nervous, anxious and stressed out animal who had just seen his owner of 10 years collapse. The dog, as we know, was shot and killed at the scene. Not only was his life taken away, his reputation and memory have been soiled.

I can forgive the press and even the police to some extent. The press sell papers at any cost, the police simply got the wrong end of the stick and reacted over zealously.

What I find less hard to forgive are people who have been presented with cold hard facts that this dog was NOT to blame for this man's death but wish to perpetuate the idea that somehow, someway the dog was guilty of something in order win an argument.

I hope Mr Rehill and his dog are both at peace wherever they may be.
 
you can't really have it all ways - slightly odd to say that you don't believe whats written in newspapers, on the tv etc but that a report in a dog magazine is obviously not biased and must be the truth !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top