Dog owner found guilty
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 26, 2008 at 7:05 a.m.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Protesters outside the courthouse this morning.
A judge is weighing the fate of a German shepherd who bit a neighbor. What do you think he should do?
ARVADA — The dog owner who has waged a months' long battle on behalf of her pet dog, Rolo, was found guilty this afternoon of having a dangerous dog and letting him run at large.
The dog owner, Laura Hagan, wept as the verdict was read in the dog-bite case that sparked worry in pet owners across the metro area that one bite could lead to their animals being destroyed.
Wednesday morning at Arvada Municipal Court, dog trainers and other witnesses will testify at a sentencing hearing about what makes the most sense for Rolo and his owner.
Assistant Presiding Judge Michael Graber has a range of options, including:
— Placing Rolo with another family.
— Requiring that Rolo continue obedience training.
— Requiring Hagan to take part in counseling programs.
— Requiring Hagan to provide proof of liability insurance of at least $100,000.
— Fining Hagan.
But having Rolo destroyed remains one of the options.
Arvada prosecutors said Hagan let Rolo run loose on July 1, 2007, and that Rolo bit neighbor Kathy Hardin, who had seen the dog charging, screamed and picked up her 14-month-old baby to protect him.
Hagan and her attorneys maintained that it was Hardin's "blood-curdling" scream that had startled Rolo, leading to the bite on Hardin's behind. Hardin said she has been in physical therapy ever since.
Dog lovers who had rallied for Rolo's cause, remained confident after the verdict that Rolo would escape the death penalty.
"I would hope the judge would use common sense and realize that Rolo is not really a dangerous dog," Monica Courtney, of Evergreen, said moments after the verdict was announced.
She and dozens of other dog lovers attended the two-day trial.
Last summer, an Arvada judge ordered Rolo destroyed, but Hagan appealed, put together a save-Rolo website and started a picketing campaign to save her dog.
"I had to be a voice for my dog," Hagan said outside the courthouse after the verdict was read. "If I hadn't appealed, Rolo would be dead now."
Professional dog trainer Ted Turrow is expected to testify Wednesday that the fact that Rolo didn't bite Hardin's arms, legs or abdomen, shows he was displaying herding behavior, not vicious behavior.
"We're hoping the judge has compassion," dog-lover Lewana Bichler of Wheat Ridge said. "If the man knows anything about dogs, he has to know by now that Rolo is anything but a dangerous dog."
Several of the people who've seen Rolo during his 6 1/2month confinement at animal shelters described him as being nothing more alarming than "a doofus."
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 26, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cazman writes:
The dog is a wolf in sheeps clothing, it's only a matter of time before someones precious snowflake is killed by this....this....possibly rabid beast.
KILL IT, KILL IT WITH FIRE, NOW!!!
February 26, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
MaxInEnglewood writes:
Honestly, who really cares? I am so tired of seeing this kind of bull front page on the newspaper everyday.
February 26, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
kmeissner writes:
Cazmna obviously you are an idiot. Even the paramedic that treated the lady said there wasn't bite marks. Only scratches. The lady freaked out for no reason. This dog does not deserve to die just because the neighbor is a moron. Both the dog and the neighbor freaked out and acted in ways their instinct told them to act. The lady obviously isn't used to dogs and Rolo wasn't used to hysterical idiotic women freaking out over nothing.
Don't put the dog down just because of one isolated incident. Even a trainer testified that he would have no problem training this dog. Let him try and if it doesn't work THEN you can talk about putting him down. Until then... innocent until proven guilty should apply to dogs as well as people.
February 26, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
Since when does a scratch require nine months of physical therapy? Absurd!
February 26, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
My dog scratched my two-year olds face. I don't know if it was with her teeth or paw because the adult in the room had her back to the pair (dog and child)
I had three choices to decide from.
A: Put a bullet in the dogs head
B: Relocate the dog to a childless family
C: Hire a professional trainer (I'm pretty close to that myself) and hope...cross my fingers that it doesn't occur again.
C: Just doesn’t seem like a choice to me. I love my dog, had her for 9 years. I’ve paid thousands of dollars in vet bills. But to risk my child’s well being for a dog seems absurd to me.
I was fortunate enough that friends were able to take the dog so option A was avoided.
But the fact is my children’s lives are worth more then ANY dog.
It’s too bad that Laura Hagan doesn’t get it.
Maybe if it were her own child that was bitten she would feel differently.
I have a question for those of you calling for leniency for Rolo….
What if Rolo was a Pitbull?
Another thing, I’d raise my right hand and swear to whomever you wish that the following statement is true….
If Laura Hagan’s attorney tried that lame line about provoking the attack as she did with Kathy Hardin, I’d have come across that table and choked the lawyer out.
How dare they try and blame the victim. I’ve personally had to pick my children up over my head to protect them from the dogs that are allowed to run loose in the neighborhood.
Sure, I don’t scream while doing so but so what.
Had Rolo pulled that crap on me there wouldn’t be a story here. I’d have killed him myself. NO DOG IS WORTH MORE THEN MY CHILD.
You darn animal loves need to start taking responsibility.
No leash….No dog.
I’d destroy ALL dogs who are allowed to run free in city limits.
ZERO tolerance.
February 26, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
The only idiot so far is kmeissner........... I'm sure many more will follow.............
"The lady freaked out for no reason" - Let's analyze - Lady in her own yard with her 14 month old child. Along come two LARGE dogs "charging" at her and her child. Good reason to "freak out" if you ask me.
"Rolo wasn't used to hysterical idiotic women freaking out over nothing" - Then he should be kept under control by his owner and not be allowed to TERRORIZE others.
"Don't put the dog down just because of one isolated incident" - Sure! Let's wait until he kills an innocent child.
"innocent until proven guilty should apply to dogs as well as people" - I'd say the two bite marks on the lady's behind are proof enough. Also, The dogs not on trial, the dogs owner is on trial.
Spin it however you'd like but the facts remain. The dog was out of control and bit a person. A responsible dog owner would have never let that happen. A responsible dog owner would have taken the dog directly to the vet and had it put down after this incident.
I love my dogs but I love my kids more.
February 26, 2008
12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Amen Fred! Well done.
February 26, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Excellent remarks Fred. Indeed, "no dog is worth more than my child." I think those that disagree with (mostly) don't have kids themselves, so how can they possibly understand what it's like to want to protect their child? I never felt very connected to kids until we had our own family. Our dogs were our kids back then.
It was the judge, basing his decision from testimony of the victim and several concerned neighbors, that decided on euthanizing the dog. Yet the lady seems to bear the brunt of that decision when only she was in the wrong place at the right time. As far as the victim "provoking" or initiating an alleged protective response the dog, if the dog(s) weren't loose and unsupervised in the first place there would have been no provocation by result of her screaming.
I do feel that the dog (and still, even if he was a pit breed) would be fine in responsible, knowledgeable hands. Whose responsible, knowledgeable hands that might be after today is up for grabs though.
February 26, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Esthere writes:
Being on both sides of this I had owned a couple of dogs plus I worked for a Vet Clinic and was bit on the lip by a dog I was picking up(it required 3 stitches in my lower lip),
I didn't not get 9 months of councling and I still bear a scar on my lip.The only thing I was worried about was if the pet was current on VX for Rabies.
The dog later passed away from cancer,I did not demand he be put down,some people are just looking for the ALMIGHTY buck
I believe that the owner of Rolo needs to either give him up to someone who will train him or she needs to get into some training classes,any dog can and will bite no matter what breed they are.
February 26, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
I just want to tell you about my dog.His name was Hans,he came from Germany.Hans was choosen for me by a friend of the family.I had been diagnosed with severe hearing loss.Being I was 39 at the time.Hans and I went to school together.He was trained to help me.I bought a house for us and we moved in.I paid 4500 dollars for a 8 foot tall fence.Then the problems started when I talked outside one day.I was deemed a prevert and sex offender by my new neighbors.Did not know me or my dog.Set upon me to destroy him and me.We were weirdos and belonged locked up.We met cops and animal control when we had done nothing.We were detained and threatened for arrest if I did not get rid of hans.So finally out of desperation I had to hire an attorney.we informed the landlord if they did not leave me and my dog alone.Litigation was forthcoming and that was the last thing I wanted.The landlord told them if they hated the dog and me they had to move.They shut up and left me alone.My dog was like Rolo a big scary guy,but sweet and non threatening.With training and everything 25,000 dollers.So when you see one of the german sheperds.Remember they are a tool for many of us.A member of our families and defender of the police.Then ask yourself who would fill their place.Also remember no one saw what happened.We just have this womens word.To bad Rolo can't speak.He might tell us she hit me,or slapped me or she screamed at me and threatened me.I don't know the whole story.I faced a very brutal neighbor and many kind people stood up for me.To these people I owe a lot of Thank Yous.My Hans is gone now and I have a new dog now.My neighbors never speak to me and they still don't like my dog.So it was not the dog its the people.Also My first family dog was a german sheperd.I have a new dog now and the neighbors think I should live in a group home still.After all people like me do not belong in their neighborhood.So people are just plain ignorant an uninformed.Poor Rolo might just be the victim of bias or flat out hatred.Know what it looks like up close.So do not kill Rolo it is the waste of a living breathing being.
February 26, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
Okay, so if one of your precious little children bites another kid, we should put him down too, right? Or what about children running around public places while their parents ignore it? Can we put down all unsupervised children, too?
February 26, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
kitty writes:
Esthere, the dog IS in training.
For the rest of you who think that animal lovers don't value the child's life, I am sure that is nowhere near the case. The fact is, none of us were there...we don't know what really happened. Three sides to every story...Hagens, Hardins, and the TRUTH! If the neighborhood was so concerned with the ferociousness of this dog, why had there never been any complaints to that fact to the animal control officers before this day? If I lived in a neighborhood with a dog that I was afraid of, I would make a complaint way before any bite occured. Maybe that is just me though. And....nine months of therapy for a bruised butt? Give me a break!
February 26, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Chili's restaurant should be held liable in this case.
Rolo just wanted his baby back ribs.
February 26, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
cterryr2 writes:
This is news? Dogs bite people everyday..they are dogs. Get over it.
February 26, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Forever_sheffu wrote:
Okay, so if one of your precious little children bites another kid, we should put him down too, right? Or what about children running around public places while their parents ignore it? Can we put down all unsupervised children, too?
--------------------------------------------
So, you believe dogs and humans are equal, eh?
No sinse in debating the insane.
Besides that, I wouldn't allow that behavior anyway so I couldn't answer the question.
February 26, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
Mercury & Fred: Your comments are RIGHT ON! Years ago as a teenager, I was the victim of an attack by a German Shepherd as was my small dog. The shepherd got away from its owner, ripped open the back of my leg (which required many stitches) and nearly killed my dog. Even as a teenager, I was a heck of a shot with a bow and arrow. Needless to say, the German Shepherd didn't live to harm anyone else -- I took care of the matter. In so many cases, people think they have the right to own aggressive animals (like Rolo) and refuse to take responsibility for the damage they can cause. I have no sympathy for Rolo or the owner. Gas 'em!
February 26, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
Fred,
I don't think I ever said humans and dogs were equal. My point was to illustrate how irrational your zero tolerance rant was. I think, as humans, we are stewards of this planets and the creatures on it and I think we are supremely ignorant and arrogant when we fail to learn about the creatures we share the earth with. The dog felt threatened by the hysterics of the woman allegedly protecting her child and he nipped. Who has the power of higher reasoning here? (I'm giving the "bite" victim the benefit of the doubt here...) The hysterical woman. She had control over that situation, not the dog and she chose to act like a flaming imbicile. So for acting on his instinct the dog should be punished? No, the flaming imbicile should accept responsibility for her actions and hopefully learn from them. This is not Cujo we're talking about here. It's a dog who was startled by loud sounds and sudden movement from a human who acted unwisely. I think both sides need to dial down the emotions, including all you pro-child people who are cheering for the demise of the dog.
February 26, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
RememberThis....
I never said a child was bitten.
The mother, who WAS bitten, covered her child and turned her back to be bitten in the backside.
What's your point?
My point is no leniency for dogs that bite.
Mrs. Hagan should THANK Mrs. Hardin for covering the child.
Had the child been bitten Mrs. Hagan’s pocket book would be much much lighter.
Mrs. Hagan should have voluntarily put the dog down. She believes her dog is more important then a human being. She’s wrong.
February 26, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Forever,
Mrs. Hardin protected her child from a CHARGING DOG.
The charging dog then BIT her.
END OF STORY.
The only thing Mrs. Hardin did wrong was letting the dog live right then and there.
I guess rape victims should know better then screaming while being attacked. After all…the predator might just cut their throat to silence them.
And yes, you are trying to equate children to dogs with your argument.
That is insane.
February 26, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
"Remember This",
Are you familiar with the proverb "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt"? You definitely removed all doubt. In response to your comment, "There [it really should be "They're", ya moron!] gonna kill this dog over a f^##$%^ scratch." No, THEY'RE going to kill the dog because 1) the dog's owner CHOSE to own an animal like Rolo, 2) the dog's owner CHOSE to be irresponsible in that she CHOSE to allow an aggressive animal to run free and terrorize people and 3) instead of assuming responsibility for the damage caused by HER dog, the owner is obviously more concerned about her frappin' dog than the person it bit. If, perhaps, the owner had shown some consideration for the victim, maybe others (like me) wouldn't be so anxious to screw the pooch.
February 26, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
dmiller writes:
I am disgusted by the verdict. I truly believed there was no way possible that guilty would be the verdict...maybe there are facts that I am not aware of but from what I have read (and I have followed this case in the news for six months now) the owner nor the dog have ever been involved in a similar situation before. She appears to have taken the responsible steps in raising the height of her fence, agreeing to go through training with the dog, agreeing to purchase a new dress for the victim and pay any related fines, etc. I don't understand how there can be any remote possibility that this dog will be euthanized, the dog barely scratched the skin of the victim...it is just ludicrous. People who commit heinous crimes are given more leniency than this dog who didn't even draw blood according to reports. Shame on the victim for pursuing this case in this manner.
As a mother of two (soon to be three) I understand the need to protect a child but let's be rational here...this dog did not hurt anyone and was acting in a typical dog manner - protective and responding to fear when the victim screamed. Fine the owner for accidentally letting the dogs loose (I still don't know how that happened as I never read anything about how the dogs got loose but it sounds like it wasn't a constant occurence), make the owner and the dog do intense training but don't euthanize or remove the dog from the owner.
February 26, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeb80602 writes:
German Shepards are easy to train to be obedient. If Rolo was properly trained he should never charge or bite anyone. Hagan gets what she deserves. Too bad Rolo has to pay for his owners stupidity.
February 26, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
10 lb pealed potatoes
5 lb chopped onions
1 lb chopped garlic sauteed in olive oil
3 lb shredded carrots
8 oz fresh basil
1/2 gallon tomato sauce
1 quart canned corn
2 cups of melted butter
1 ornery kid or woman biting 50 lb dog skinned, gutted, filleted, de-boned, and shredded
Slow cook non-dog ingredients for 3 hours.
Pan or deep fry shredded dog meat until crisp golden brown while adding sauteed garlic and black pepper to taste.
Sear dog meat with melted butter.
Add crisped dog meat to stew.
Serve to guests with a pasta side dish.
Expect compliments. Leftovers may be frozen.
February 26, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
It doesn't matter that the Hagan supporters still want to call the injury "only a scratch." An impartial jury has decided that Ms. Hagan is guilty of the offenses. So the "only a scratch" argument is over.
Now the question will be can the Hagan supporters' arguments outweigh the many concerned neighbors who are terrified of the dog being returned to the neighborhood.
I hope Rolo gets to live, but isn't returned to Ms. Hagan.
February 26, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
As a dog owner, I have to be responsible. This is for those around me as well as for the safty of the dog. Having said that, I also believe the punishment (there really is no punishment for the dogs...they don't understand) should fit the crime. I am really starting to have zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Sentence the dog to time served.
February 26, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
Yeah...yeah...
Personal attacks are the way to go, Remeberthis.
That'll prove beneficial to your debating skills!
Good luck with that.
February 26, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
Fred,
I can see rational discourse is lost on you. Feel free to blow things out of proportion, I'm through trying to discuss anything calmly with you, but I will say this: your example of the rape victim is completely irrelevant in this instance. It's a false argument based soley on your raging emotions and having no real bearing on the matter at hand. (I believe the regulars around here would recognize it as a strawman.) I am talking about you, a (benefit of the doubt again) rational, thinking human being versus a dog. You, as a human being at the top of the food chain, should be able to control a situation better than running in like a screaming banshee and startling the dog. If the woman had been seriously injured, it would be a different story. But a scratch on the butt is no more than a reminder not to behave like a juggling clown around animals who don't have our powers of thought. The dog was protecting itself from a perceived threat, nothing more.
February 26, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
The dog will either be euthanized or adopted into a new home. No way it stays in the neighborhood. How bad would the judge looked after another incident? The owner seems like a real bimbo.
February 26, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kslayer writes:
Animals are animals. Weather it be a dog, or a cute little birdie. There is always the chance that it will attack you. Trained or untrained. We might as well go and euthanize all dogs in this country one by one so Humans no longer have to fear getting bit. What a joke this is. What a waste of tax dollars. No foul no harm. It was only a scratch.
February 26, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
RMREADER writes:
It is sad to note the amount of hostility that is in these posts. From dog "recipes" to calls for bullets in the head just shows how unbalanced and childish some of these posters are. What ever happened to common sense or measured responses? Why do people feel compelled to resort to attacks and smears? Has everyone regressed to kindergarten?
I'd offer up that a majority of people have lost the ability to reason and create equitable solutions. The culpability of Rolo's actions lies with its owner. The owner indicates responsibility and is getting additional training for the dog. The injuries sustained were not life threatening. There is a compromise that can serve both parties and Rolo does not have to die for an isolated incident.
The average person's blood lust and lack of reasoning is far scarier than any dog.
February 26, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Forever_SheffU - Let's analyze
"The dog felt threatened by the hysterics of the woman allegedly protecting her child and he nipped." - Two LARGE dogs "charging at her and her infant and you think the dog felt threatened? SHE WAS IN HER OWN YARD!
"(I'm giving the "bite" victim the benefit of the doubt here...) - That's nice of you considering she was doing NOTHING to provoke this attack."
"The hysterical woman. She had control over that situation, not the dog and she chose to act like a flaming imbicile." - She had control of her child in her own yard. She had two LARGE dogs "charging" at her and her infant and you call her a "flaming imbicile"? The "flaming imbicile" was just CONVICTED!
"So for acting on his instinct the dog should be punished? No, the flaming imbicile should accept responsibility for her actions and hopefully learn from them." - What about the victims instincts? The instinct to protect herself and her child. For that you refer to her as the "flaming imbicile".
"It's a dog who was startled by loud sounds and sudden movement from a human who acted unwisely." - A human who was startled and terrified because there were two LARGE dogs charging at her and her infant. She acted unwisely? How about the dogs owner? You want to blame the victim? The one who was bitten by the dog in on her own property? Are you kidding me????????
I'm not cheering for the demise of the dog. It's a very unfortunate position for the animal. One that could have been avoided if the owner was a responsible pet owner. Now that the damage has been done the animal must be put down. Sad but true.
I just don't understand why people want to blame the victim here. She did NOTHING wrong!
February 26, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Esthere writes:
Hmmm Kitty no where on the Rolo website does it say he is in training atm other than being locked up at the HM?
The point is if the damage was more than a scratch then yes sue to recoup but jeez for a scratch that the EMTs and Police said didn't even break the skin give me a break.
Just proves that people are sue happy
February 26, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
When I was 5 I got bit by a little dog on my behind. No broken skin but I had a purple bruise. I had 6 months of therapy. It was not for the injury. It was for the mental trauma of my mother frantically pulling my pants down in public to see if I was OK.
February 26, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
I have already given my opinion. It is plain to see that a large dog does not belong in the city. It is also plain to see that there are a lot of paranoid hysterical people living in the city. If you are afraid your baby monkeys will be attacked, do not let them out of the cave. There are many dangers out there, also keep them in line at the local eatery, do not let them lose at the local Wal-mart, and please you raise them, I have already raised mine.
This situation is the result of bottom feeding lawyers and paranoid people, it has nothing to do with the dog. The situation sounds like a dog trying to protect a child from a screaming lady!
February 26, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
RememberThis, why do you keep going on and on about the therapy. The trial is over. The extent of the victim's injury or how much medical attention or physical therapy she has undergone is irrelevant now.
The only thing that remains to be decided are appropriate punishments for the defendant. You and the other supporters' miguided anger and resentment for an innocent victim is rediculous.
February 26, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
Mercury,
My goodness, calm yourself. Let me give you the background of my thinking so you understand here. I was attacked by a neighbor's cat in my own backyard when I was a kid in jr. high. I had to have a million shots and had my arm bandaged from wrist to shoulder for a couple weeks. Do I now hate all cats? No. Did I advocate the killing of this cat? No. Did I learn when a strange cat was in my yard to squirt it with a hose and take no chances? Yes. I seriously doubt the lady involved will have half the scars I do (I hope she doesn't). I hope she learned she needs to temper her behavior around animals, since they don't have the ability to reason and she does. I realize she was protecting her children from a perceived threat. What good mother should do. The dog, similarly, was protecting himself from a perceived threat. I say she, as the intelligent, reasonable human in this situation, should chalk it up to a lesson learned. The owner has taken steps to get the dog more training, so it was a learning situation for everyone involved. The dog shouldn't lose his life over this and to suggest that it is appropriate is grossly overreacting to what should have been a "whoops, my bad" moment between neighbors. (And I hardly think it warrants the shouting and rampant abuse of punctation in your post, but I digress...)
February 26, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The only people goofier than the dingbag woman that was found guilty, are all the nuts that kept trying to ignore the evidence in an effort to save the dog.
Time for the nuts to protest the verdict by drinking the special Kool-Aid. Mass suicide by the animal rights nuts.... that will show them!
February 26, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Firedewd writes:
How does everyone know the dog was trying to protect the baby? He could have been upset and bit the women becaue she snatched an easy meal from his reach.
February 26, 2008
3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Poor eco-nuts.... time to drink the Kool-Aid... your goofy hero was found GUILTY!
DRINK DRINK DRINK! Protest this GUILTY verdict! Time to do more than whine! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!
February 26, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Thank God. We can finally be done. A JURY found Hagen guilty! Thankfully, her irresponsibility is going to be punished. I do hope that Rolo gets to live as he also a victim of his owners disregard.
Someone up above mentioned that this was a first offense... but that's not true. Hagen had previously been cited for having a "dog at large" so clearly she was just lacking in responsibility.
Anyhow, I'm glad that the truth came out about Hagen. Hopefully the people who were attacking the victim will realize that a jury of impartial observers was probably spot on after getting the facts.
Like I said, let the poor dog get trained and then evaluated after 6 months or so...but make sure that Hagen NEVER gets him back...otherwise it will happen again.
February 26, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Forever_SheffU,
Calm myself? I'm fine thank you.
The amount of scars this lady has is irrelevant. She was bitten by this dog. Would a mauling make things different?
Temper her behavior around animals? This was not a cat. This was an 80-100 pound German Shepard charging at here and her infant son while in her own yard. No doubt she was terrified. Who wouldn't be terrified in that situation? I think a scream would be an appropriate reaction considering the situation that was forced upon her.
My point is this: You're right, it's not the dogs fault. He was not trained properly by his owner. He was not under the control of his owner. It's a shame he has to pay the penalty because of his irresponsible owner.
February 26, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The nuts aren't done yet! It's time to APPEAL!
The dingbat owner has become the role model of the animal rights nut crowd, and they've demonstrated a desire to lie about the evidence and send hate mail to the victim, so obviously they're all deranged enough to appeal and keep playing this nutty case out as long as possible.
February 26, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
RememberThis, where have you not shown anger in your posts?
I've seen masked vulgarity in several of your posts. I'm not sure who you are angry at, maybe anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you?
February 26, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
PJM writes:
Turn the dog loose in Rocky Mountain National Park and he can thin the elk herd. Everybody wins!
February 26, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
Mercury,
You keep trying to turn this into a Greek tragedy. She was nipped by a frightened dog. Is this a life altering, years of intense therapy to get over event? Hardly. Should we even be hearing about it? Not at all. It's a non-event. It's a near miss in traffic, not a five car collision. The sane and rational thing to do would be to take steps to see the dog is no longer permitted to run loose and gets training. That has been done and then some. The dog should not be killed for this and the victim needs to get on with life.
February 26, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Forever-
What steps to be sure the dog isn't running loose? This is the SECOND time the owner was cited for him being at-large. She is clearly too irresponsible to prevent this from happening in the future.
February 26, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
(Why oh why do I try and converse with these people who are unable to converse or debate in a reasonable way.)
Okay RememberThis, obviously you aren't angry with the victim of this matter. Your anger and vulgarity is obviously focused on nobody in particular, its just there for no real reason. I understand you now, sorry for the earlier confusion. Happy now?
February 26, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Remember-
This was written about a number of times in previous articles. It's also a matter of public records at the City of Arvada.
February 26, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Forever_SheffU writes:
I don't know the dog, but I do know my dog was an escape artist and got out of my backyard a couple of times before I figured out how she was doing it and dog proofed her escape route. Does that make me irresponsible? No, it makes me a dog owner with a learning curve. I figured it out and I worked on training her not to run.
I just don't see when civility with neighbors went out the window and our first venue is the courts and involving the law. I agree the dog shouldn't have been out and needed more training. That's not a point of dispute. What does bother me escalating this to the point it is at now.
In a perfect world, animals would never be out of control. But if you go out in the world, you are going to get bumped and bruised. I used to work in a daycare as a part time job in high school and one of the kids whacked me over the head with a toy vacuum cleaner. Raised a nice goose egg on my head. Is that a bad child? Did I sue his parents? No in both instances. I explained to the child that he shouldn't do those things because it hurt people and I let his parents know because I thought they should know. Sometimes the solutions are just that simple. This should have been one of those times.
February 26, 2008
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
It might have been in the local (Arvada)paper. I had a hard time finding it a second time as well. But, as I said, the record of the citation was available from the City of Arvada.
February 26, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Nope, second offense of dog-at-large.
February 26, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
As I said, City of Arvada. Public Records. Very simple. That's all the proof I need. Oh, it'll probably be in the transcripts from the trial which Hagen posts on her site... if you don't want to shell out the $5.
February 26, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Remeber this,
From an earlier article:
"Photographs show four U-shaped marks on her right buttock, indicating two separate bites."
Maybe this will help you understand. Keep blaming the victim. What a shame.
February 26, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Remember this,
The link is below.
I'd prefer the pictures vs. the paramedic statement
Just for your information - four U shaped marks = two bites. A dog has one U shape on the top and one U shape on the bottom of the mouth. One bite would = two U shape marks. duh
Now it's time for you to apologize to the victim.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
February 26, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
The two hottest threads on RMN now are about this...though that might be due partially to Remember posting one liners.
This is likely all for nothing. The dog will likely be destroyed, and if he was a pit or rottie, he would have been long before now.
It is not important how many times the dog has been caught out running. It is not important how many times it has attacked. It is not important what the dog was "thinking".
He was out. He did attack. He hurt some one because for whatever reason, it seemed to be the thing for him to do. And statistically speaking, a dog who bites once will repeat. That is why, as a general rule of thumb, dogs are considered dangerous if they have ever attacked even once. The Humane Society will not re-home an animal that bites. The animal in not salvageable in their educated, and experienced opinion. They, the humane society, will destroy the dog rather than risk a recurrance.
If the mother had allowed the dog to get a hold of the baby, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
February 26, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
I don't get it.I have had dogs all my life and I have never had a dog get out of our yard and run free.I've never lost a dog.Maybe because my dogs love me and my family and don't want to leave.
Rolo might not want to live there.
February 26, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
GUILTY. No matter how much the nuts want to whine and complain the evidence isn't real.
February 26, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
kitty writes:
Esthere...
In recent weeks, Judge Graber ordered the dog released to a reputable dog trainer and that is where he is at this time....it may not say that on the website, but I have been following all the stories on this case and he is with Ted Terroux (sp?) being trained as we speak...sue happy, yes they are!
February 26, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
GUILTY. Make the idiot owner pay 100% of the court costs. Make the morons defending her and the dog, chip in for wasting the courts time on this charade.
February 26, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
Remember this,
You must really live a "bliss" life. Your ignorance is astounding!
February 26, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
phoenix writes:
I've read the blogs on this case and I am mortified, and disgusted by what has been said. You've read them here on this site yourself. Think your being funny NOT, so tell me which would you rather see coming down the street, ROLO or a wack job that needs a padded room at the physic ward. Frankly ROLO would be a welcome site.
February 26, 2008
5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
What I can't get over is the line in the article stating "...sparked worry in pet owners across the metro area that one bite could lead to thier animals being destroyed"... Is this a brand new rule that no body was informed of, or is it more likely that no one stopped and thought before they got a dog?
"Hey, if this dog bites some one, the courts might order it killed....and order me to pay for every thing, because owning a pet is a big reponsibility. Wait...that word...I've heard it before. Responsibility...nah, that only applies to other people. The people my new dog bites for instance."
Lets get real about what accident means, shall we?? Does having something accidentally happen absolve the person who caused it of responsibility? Evidently not, as the verdict is in now, and the owner is guilty. That's done.
Now, if the court rules to destroy the dog as an additional consequence to the owner, that might be a tad out of line...but that won't be the case.
If the court has the dog put down, it will be in the interrest of public safety. And they will rule likewise in every other case, as they have in every case before---Animals that attack, with or without provocation, are destroyed if it goes as far as a court room. A responsible owner would have taken care of it herself rather than making the rest of us go on this trip with her.
February 26, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
RememberThis,
Yes, I have been to Tijuana, which reminds me that vicious baby-attacking dogs are also very tasty as a beef or chicken substitute in fajitas and chimichangas. Actually, dog is better than either.
Dogs that bark excessively also make an excellent sleep aid when eaten for dinner.
Of course, Rolo didn't attack the woman he bit. He attacked her baby. The woman got bit protecting the baby and probably saved the child's life.
I've owned dogs and trained each of them carefully. They learned to protect all children or I put them down. I was their alpha and they learned that all children were mine, at least in their canine brains.
Any large breed dog is physically capable of killing a small child. Any person who keeps a large breed dog that isn't properly trained to respect the safety of children is an idiot. Putting down the dog is a good start but maybe you've proven one thing in this discussion that hadn't occurred to me: that owners of aggressive dogs should get a needle, too.
February 26, 2008
5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Fred,
I agree in principle on several portions of your defense, but disquilify all the rest. I dont feel a dog's life is worth more than a child. Children are innocent, for all intents and purposes. You? Me? That guy at the end of the street that would likely rape your wife in a heart beat? No.
Is your life worth more than my dog? No.
What is it that you've done for me? Would you defend me? Protect me? Comfort me in times of need? What would you do for me? Are you my friend? Some distant person I could somehow relate to?
No.
Frankly, your life has zero value to me. We both agree there, I'm sure. But Your right, if a dog does threaten a child it has two options, training (if possible) or being put to sleep. I have a neice, thats the reason why I feel I an honestly say....If either of my dogs ever hurt her with intent or otherwise, I'd choke them with my own hands. End of story.
But you? I wouldnt do an honary drink, piss, or a sh*t in your name if someone ran you over and dragged your ten miles before you were left to die under the hood as the guy stopped in for a burger at Mcdonalds. Why?
Because you mean nothing to me. You've done me no good, or nothing ill. Your zero. Actually, less than that.
My dogs? At least they'd defend me. I trust them a hell of alot more than you. But we agree. A child isnt a grown man who would do the world a great evil, like yourself, as an unconfirmed example. After all, the best of men, the smartest of men, are capable of being animals.
So, based on your logic, I'm following that....
Is your life worth more than my dogs? Nope......No way no how. You've done me nothing at all, and your life is worthless to me.
That's not saying I wish you ill, or that you keel over now. But if it happens I wouldnt care.
February 26, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
UglyDuck,
So you weren't man enough to face the owner? You must not have a sack of Ba**s at the time. I bet you felt like a big tough man taking down an animal from a few (safe) hundred yards didnt you? Yah, big man.
Frankly, I'd call you an A hole, but....Your not.
That leaves two things. A p***y or a F**gat. Or perhaps both. I'll be honest with you.
When I was 15 two dogs had me cornered in an unlit area of a school ground while I was on my way home from work. Both came at me and I challenged them head on, luckily the dogs didnt or werent really interested in a fight. They eventually wondered off after about twenty minutes. Was it scary? I'd lie if I told you no.
But I remembered the house. I came after the owner, not the dog. That's because even at that age I wasn't a coward like you. If I had a problem I took it up at the source.
and BTW, I personally have many gay friends, so anyone out there, I apologies for using the language, but its meant as empowering the entent here.
February 26, 2008
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
SXC writes:
I was totally bored and passing time when I started reading everybodys comments......I realize now that I am a "NUT" dogs rule people suck! temurlan, you made me laugh so hard! Thanks!
February 26, 2008
6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Dear Goddess what would I do without this thread and the chance to snort coffee out my nose so often?
This would make a wonderful study for a psych class.
February 26, 2008
6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
JALANG writes:
IF THIS DOG WAS AN AMERICAN PITBULL TERRIER,
THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
PROBABLY SHOT ON SITE REGARDLESS OF TEMPERMENT
WHERES THE JUSTICE?
February 26, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
JALANG writes:
PUNISH THE DEED
NOT THE BREED
February 26, 2008
7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Remember-
Actually yes, I did. I was having this discussion on a diff. thread and suddenly couldn't find the article. Since my whole objection is with the fact that this was Hagen's SECOND time with a dog-at-large... I wanted to be sure I was still sane. Thankfully, I was. Which is why I have NO PROBLEM arguing that she is an irresponsible pet owner. Accident's happen, but when they happen after you've had the issue before and then didn't bother to address it... my only sympathy is for the dog because he ended up with a careless, and irresponsible owner.
As far as the rest of you who keep saying the victim is sue happy... you apparently have no grasp of the law or can't read. This was NOT A CIVIL CASE where the victim was asking for $$$. This was a case involving guilt or innocence for violating the law! Hardin is not getting $$$ because Hagen was found Guilty! The only outcome of this case is that judge will now decide Rolo's fate and what PUNISHMENT will be imposed on Hagen. Her PUNISHMENT will likely be a fine and loss of her right to own animals...and that fine will be paid to Arvada...NOT THE VICTIM! sheesh
February 26, 2008
7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Fresh-
Totally agree. However, pit breeds were created for fighting and have stronger jaws and a more agressive temperment than other breeds. Now, I do not think they, or for that matter the majority, are all bad, and totally agree that a pit with a good owner is a good pit. (they are cute as hell too!) Actually, the dog most likely to bite you is a Cocker Spaniel... but their bites don't do a whole lot of damage.
The problem with pits is that once they bite, they hang on...and tear. They have incredible anatomy and muscles... and can do a lot of damage. Anyhow, the whole point I'm making is that their strength and ability to inflict lethal force is what gives them a bad name...and the idiot owners don't help!
February 26, 2008
7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
I was bitten by a dog in Denver while jogging. The owner had the gall to run out and yell at me right after the dog bit me. He was screaming at me saying if I knew how to treat his dog then the bite wouldn't have occured.
Well we went right to court and the man (a practicing doctor in Denver) stood right up and told the most aggregious series of lies ever told in a Denver court.
The wise old judge saw right through the BS and dude was issued the fine he was there to contest plus court fees. It was a first offense, so one more bite and Fido pays with his life.
People need to keep their dogs leashed and stop defending their own failures.
I feel Kathy Hardin's pain. If you really love your dog - keep him on a leash.
February 26, 2008
8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
I reccommend putting Hagen down and giving Rolo to a family who knows how to handle dogs and respects the rights of others who may not like dogs. In an urban setting leads are mandatory and the law. How many owners have drown chasing after a dog on thin ice?
I own a 40# Aussie and a 20# Westie and would never trust them around children or strangers. It's called responsibility. I hope Rolo can be placed.
February 26, 2008
9:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
dadio161 writes:
I think that ROLO should have to go to new owners and provide proof of extensive training and Laura Hagan should be put " to sleep ".
February 26, 2008
9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
heartfelt writes:
To everyone who still doesn't know the facts:
Laura Hagan does NOT want to stay in Arvada !! Why the heck would she ???
Rolo is best off with her, for she would do anything to have him trained, he's a smart dog and was not "attacking", he was herding....
It just seems so amazing to me how many blogs here seem to be from people who are at a true lack of understanding the canine mind.
They come to hasty conclusions.
Rolo did not even bother with the child. That was all prediction and drama. So keep the child factor out of it !!!
Moving Rolo to a different family: What is that going to ensure ??? Nothing !!! Laura loves him and wants his best.
He deserves to go home, where he belongs. Enough is enough !!!
February 26, 2008
11:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
heartfelt, since Hagan hasn't sold her house and given the market and how long properties take to sell (months or even a year or more), if the judge were to return the dog to Hagan, the dog would also be returning to the neighborhood which would be the absolute worst idea ever. To put that dog back into the hot-bed neighborhood would be a receipe for disaster and probably a huge potential liability for the judge and the entire city. What happens if Rolo bites, or "herds" (as you refer to it) someone again? And imagine if this time the recipient of the bite actually is a child as this recent bite very likely could have been.
It just makes so much more sense that if the judge allows Rolo to live, then to place the dog in an environment out the outskirts somewhere that best ensures the safety and piece of mind of everyone involved, the defendant, the victim, any potential victim, the neighborhood as a whole, and even the dog. The risk in any neighborhood is great...especially that particular neighborhood. I hope the judge can find a way to make sure that people safety is on the fore-front of his decision.
February 27, 2008
1:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
For all the Rolo's in the world.First this woman started screaing and running around.She triggered the attack upon herself period.I have had germans all my life never been bitten once.The dog that bit me was a small shetland sheepdog.I am hearing impaired and owned a german named Hans.He was a complete loser he flunked police acdemy and then guard dog school.I needed a companion and a friend of the family,secured him for me.With the training to become a service dog 25,000 thousand dollars.Everywhere I went my new neighbors followed us calling the police and animal control.He was a killer and he had to go.The landlord threatened me with a lawsuit so I called a attorney to get ready for his lawsuit.Well he settled.Also I m not a pervert or a freak because I am deaf.So I do not feel any sorrow for the victim.For the real victim is Rolo.Also for all the pet owners publish that broads picture so we can avoid her at all cost.How about her taking some personal responsablility for her actions.Rolo can't tell us what she did to him.Also no witnesses to the attack,she could have scratched her butt on a fence.People have been known to bend the truth a little when it comes to a buck.Just a word for the victim stay away from me and my dog okay.Because he means more to me he is not a dog he is my best friend period.Also it sounds like she did not get a dime could this have been the real reason for her motives.In my mind she is as guilty as Rolo.
February 27, 2008
3:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
gwats writes:
It's a 37 cent mutt. Put it down and move on.......
February 27, 2008
5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
CP writes:
The dog should not be punished for an irresponsible dog owner. The dog needs a fenced back yard and should always be leashed when outside the yard. These 2 things are so simple it's ridiculous that dog owners can't figure this out.
The dog owners I really hate are the ones I meet on the hiking trails that let their dogs run lose.
Lock up the owner not the dog.
February 27, 2008
6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
BTP writes:
happymike, the victim of this case wasn't "running around" as you put it. She was walking with her infant son. The dog charged at her. She scooped up the baby and turned her back on the dog so that she would take the brunt of the attack, rather than her infant son being the recipient of the bite.
I imagine since you love your dog so much, you are a responsible dog owner. That makes you a completely different dog owner than the defendant in this case. Ms. Hagan herself has referred to her dog as aggressive and the dog has a history of being out of his yard and off leash and also has a history of disturbing many neighbors. And if you read all the transcripts and look at the history of this case, the only money the victim has received has been for her initial medical bills, something in the neighborhood of $700. I hardly think she got rich off this case considering she had to sell her house to avoid being killed or harassed by the nutsos who threatened her.
February 27, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
MERCURY writes:
happymike44,
Of all the posts on this board, I find yours the most disturbing. You of all people, based on your own experiences, should understand the victim in this case has been treatd unfairly. You contend the dog is the victim. To a point I agree. However, I have not read that the dog was bitten by this lady. I have not read anywhere that she provoked this attack in any way. I highly doubt she would put her infants safety at risk by provoking an attack from a very large dog.
There are two victims in the case. The dog because of it's irresponsible owner and the actual person who was bitten as a result of the dog owners negligence.
Karma is a powerful force, Mike. Some of your words above could very well be perceived as threats. It would not surprise me if you received a well deserved visit from the police in the near future.
February 27, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
happymike44 -
I know your deaf dude but that's not an excuse for stupidity.
You said, "It sounds like she [Hardin] did not get a dime . . ."
That's b/c this is a criminal case, not civil. She's not suing she's pressing charges. You knew that right?
February 27, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
The dog owner in this case is LUCKY that the worst punishment is putting the dog down. That dog is a HUGE liability to her. Next time the dog attacks she may be losing a LOT more than the dog.
Fred, Mercury and UglyDuck are absolutely right. I'm a dog owner and a dog lover, but when the dog exhibits dangerous behavior, bye bye doggie.
February 27, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
LS writes:
It's useless to keep rehashing what some see as "facts" and claim to have an understanding of what dogs are thinking. And as far as the dog doing nothing to child, nobody can really say what the outcome would have been had the mother not picked up the kid and turned her back to receive the force of the dog. That is just plain stupid to assume the dog may not have really hurt the baby. The case is over.
The REAL fact is that the jury found against the defendant - no surprise there. I'm sure the people that had to live around her are relieved to a certain extent.
And there are sure some weird people on this blog.
February 27, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
I am going to post one more time on this, then this will be over in mind, let paranoia reign in Arvada.
Lessons for all: Please if you decide to get a dog, remember while looking at the cute little fluff ball, that it will take many enjoyable hours to train properly, you cannot just leave it in the backyard and expect it to know how to act and react around people! If you have a job that requires most of your time, DO NOT GET A LARGE DOG, it needs YOU to teach, feed, walk, and love it, you need a cat, maybe a fish, they do not need a lot of attention. Do the dog a favor, if you live in the city, ask your nieghbors how they will react to a large dog before you get it, make sure you have a yard that will support and contain a dog, make sure your temperment can take a few holes in the lawn, and a little excrement between the toes!
Lawyers and courts do not solve problems, they make them larger. Common sense and calm heads do....I do hope Rollo lives through all this human ignorance.
February 27, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
Retread said: "Lawyers and courts do not solve problems, they make them larger. Common sense and calm heads do..."
For all who agree with this philosophy, please come talk to us after you or a loved one gets mauled by a dog. We'll see how you feel then about lawyers and courts. I don't think "common sense and calm heads" will reattach the flesh to your or your loved one's body.
February 27, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
NotUrFriend,
Your vitriolic and vulgar comments suggest your IQ level is on par with that of a 3-day-old dog turd. I have to admit that, given I'm wasting my time replying to your foolish comments, I must not be all that bright either. Nonetheless, here goes... Your post to Fred smacks of someone who is childish and very self-centered. You have no regard for others. Why? Because (according to your own words) they haven't done anything for you. After all, it's all about you, right? And, isn't that the crux of the problem that surrounds this entire issue? In this particular case, dog lovers choose to own pets without any concern for the people who might be offended by their dog's constant barking, or whether or not their aggressive dog might bite someone, or... To address your post to me, my folks did approach the neighbor who owned the dog that ripped open my leg and nearly killed my dog. And, just like Hagan (and so many like her), they refused to accept responsibility for the damage their dog had caused. They refused to pay for the vet bill and they refused to pay for my medical treatment. So, no more doggie. I also have another story I'm sure you'll enjoy. I have relatives in Colorado who own a farm. About 2 years ago, they started having problems with a neighbor who allowed their German Shepherd (yep, another one) to run through my relative's fields and chase their cattle. So, the neighbor was approached and warned. These "considerate" neighbors basically told my relative "screw you". So, guess what? No more doggie. And, when the neighbors called the sheriff, the sheriff told these people if my relatives hadn't shot the dog, he would have!
February 27, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
levelhead writes:
Fred,
You have zero tolerance for a dog that did nothing more than nip? He didn't even break the skin. What about Kathy who, in my opinion, is trying to extort money? Do you have zero tolerance for that abuse as well? Who ever needed 9 months of physical therapy for a nip to the gluteus? Where are the "Nerve Conduction Studies" to prove Kathy's allegations of nerve damage? I don't believe her story, unless she can show the results of a nerve conduction study. As far as I know, Kathy has not been able to produce any medical documents what-so-ever that would verify she had any significant damage except for a bruise.
You say that you have zero tolerance; I wonder if society should have zero tolerance for you should your children ever be involved in a misdemeanor.
I agree that Rolo needs some extra training, but to put the dog down for a nip that didn't even break the skin is a bit extreme. If you can't show any compassion and you have zero tolerance for a one-time accident; then you must be held to the same standards in life. Personally, I would hope that someone would show me a little compassion if something very minor happened quite by accident.
February 27, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Levelhead-
How is she trying to extort money? This wasn't a civil case! It was a CRIMINAL case because Hagen BROKE THE LAW! All that the victim has received is around $700 -- which basically is a couple of office visits and a few shots. Don't be dense a CRIMINAL case is not the same this as a LAWSUIT!
February 27, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
LevelHead,
I completely agree, you really structured this arguement far better than I did. I am afraid I was more emotional but the fact remains. A zero tolerance attitude should be required on the person just as it is on anyone or thing he places that attitude to.
Personally, from a logical stand point, I couldnt comprehend the "9 months of entensive physical therapy!" I had a clean fracture through my left hand during a open non-gloved fighting event back when I was 17 and I was told "two months of physical therapy" and I went only for two sessions (two weeks) and was fine. She's playing the sympathy card, really taking terrible advantage of people in the opinion of Fred.
As for UglyDuck, if I had been in your place, I'd have taken the person to court, small claims or otherwise, if I felt less inclined to just fight the A**hole myself. I would NOT have taken "go sc*ew yourself!" for an answer. Period. In the end a dog reacts the way he is (or isnt) trained. A lack of training in this case should have been a lawsuit ontop of the dog being humanely euthenized.
So, I feel nothing for you though hopefully, you didnt suffer terrible injuries. But that comes with something called life, if you did. Get used to it, I promise there will be more to come. Heaven knows we all suffer that.
February 27, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Hmm.... 10 neighbors testified this was a vicious dog that threatened people.
One person... a wacky owner.... claims the dog isn't a threat.
So who do the animal rights nuts side with? The whack job. Of course.
February 27, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Pauncho, one thing, do you believe money will reattach the skin? No? How about using some common sense before the mauling? That just might work. I am sure the courts and lawyers will help you, more ignorance........
February 27, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
I just took a look at the poll that RMN has out there on this. Most of us favor putting the dog into training, which is great. But there is a caveat that goes with putting any dog into obedience training and especially for Rolo.
Whoever has Rolo in their possession must continue his training on a regular basis. You don't just have a dog trained and think it will stay trained without working with it daily. In this high-profile case, that person must be dedicated to maintaining a high level of absolute obedience, particularly since a city judge will have his reputation and his assurance to several concerned parties in Arvada on the line.
Is there complete confidence that Hagan will remain totally dedicated to the task? On the surface I'd say yes, given her willingness to fight for her dog. But time tends to numb peoples' experiences too...
February 27, 2008
2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Hey PMSXpress-
I can't believe we're still talking about this...haha
Anyhow, i do not share your confidence in Hagen. This is a woman who didn't care enough in the first place, continues to think it even matters how bad Hardin was hurt, stood in front of the VICTIMS house in the middle of the night screaming and then basically formed a lynch mob to protest the fact that she has been made to take responsibility for something that was entirely her fault.
Well, the screaming outside Hardin's house in the middle of the night by itself speaks to the type of person Hagen is. Clearly not a well-balanced adult. It's probably best that someone like her not be allowed to own a large, potentially agressive, animal.
Hopefully Rolo gets to live. Just with someone a bit, shall we say, more in step with how responsible, stand up citizens behave.
February 27, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Hey JB, here we go 'round the mulberry bush again! Ha!
Yeah I know we disagree on the Hagan point, though I do detest her entitled attitude. However sometimes people can be retaught even though the jury found her guilty (as well they should have). Benefit of the doubt thing ingrained in me I guess. One thing though, that picture of her in the RMN? Pink is NOT a good color for her.
But hey, let's call each other names and insult each other because we disagree on opinion, shall we? Snort!
February 27, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
PMSXpress-
You are a total idiot! I can't believe how horribly stupid you are!!! Seriously were you born with brain damage??? Pink is SOOOO her color! hehehe
Yeah, if I ever seriously resort to that sort of debate tactic...please put ME down! Have a great day!
February 27, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
DogLover writes:
I've read all the comments & have a hard time with some of them. I own 2 German Shepherds. They are trained. They are not allowed outside their yard by themselves. THEY ARE DOGS. The live in the house. They are not allowed to be with small children because they haven't been raised around them. If someone with kids comes over, the girls go outside, in the fenced yard. If a stranger comes to the door, the girls are with me when I open the door. I also carry more than enough insurance to pay for any damage they might do. One is almost 12, the other is 3, & neither has bit or threatened anyone.
Hagan is guilty of negligence, in allowing Rolo out alone. Hardin is building "specials" for the civil case that will follow the criminal case. She's out for the money. There is no way a scratch needs 9 months of physical therapy. (What she doesn't know is the personal injury attorney will keep 50% of what she gets, after all the medical & legal fees are paid.) If she had stood still & faced the dog, he would have backed off. He isn't vicious.
If I had the option, I would take Rolo & give him a good & safe home.
February 27, 2008
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Krishva writes:
I grew up with German Shepherds. I certainly wouldn't take this behavior as aggression. From what I read, the bite didn't even break the skin--so the "bite" shouldn't even be a case.
The owner was irresponsible when she let the dog run at large, and she should be penalized according to the law. The dog should not be declared dangerous, though. That little nip on the butt probably bruised the victim's dignity a lot more than her body (especially considering that she screamed bloody murder like the dog was going to kill her).
The only penalty for the dog himself should be a requirement to take basic obedience, so the owner can keep him under control more easily. I wholly endorse forcing the owner to take more responsibility for her dog. Calling this a vicious dog bite, though, is an insult to people who actually get bitten for REAL.
The victim should also have to take a dog safety class. She really reacted very badly in that situation, and the dog probably would have left her completely unharmed had she picked up her child calmly and backed away. Calm behavior is key in dealing with any animal. Screaming and making quick movements (including running) is about the dumbest thing you can do if you think an animal might try to attack you.
I am very much against blaming the victim in general. However, in the case of domestic animal attacks, the perp (the animal) is not responsible. Dogs don't have the same kind of self-control people do. Even a responsibly-owned dog could snap at someone if it was frightened by the person's behavior. Human beings are the only ones who can control domestic animal attacks--by being responsible about their own animals and acting responsible around other people's animals.
February 27, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
JB: :P LOL!
DogLover: Guess if that happens, we will read/hear about it in the media. Could be she damaged a disc in her spine from the combined twisting/lifting of the toddler, in an effort to shield her kid. However you want to describe the damage and speculate on the motivation, the dog still caused pain to another person on that person's own property. Also, the burden wasn't upon the victim to instantly apply canine psychology in the moment. It was merely how she reacted and it isn't as uncommon as you think.
From reading earlier stories in the Arvada Sentinel, I guess there had been a problem with Rolo attacking another dog while leashed on on a walk (it wasn't reported to animal control), and then displaying very excessive aggression to a backyard neighbor through the chainlink fence... and so, well neighbors talk ya know. He already had a reputation and the victim was afraid of that reputation. Maybe Rolo is all bark and no bite, but what parent in their right mind would leave that to chance?
If Hagan is reading this, she ought to (very) seriously consider taking out an umbrella liability in addition to her regular homeowner's policy (if she can get the coverage, she may be uninsurable or considered high risk because of the guilty verdict now). If Rolo (or even her other 2 dogs) bites again, she's dog meat.
February 27, 2008
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
LiAnne writes:
I am glad that the judge ruled that Rolo is NOT a clear and present danger to the neighborhood and that he has allowed Rolo to go back to his owner. The measures he imposed on her are strict but practical and reasonable.
February 27, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
LS writes:
Glad to know this story has a happy ending for the dog.
The link below should satisfy RememberThis in taking JB to task to prove his/her point of whats-her-name's careless attitude due to prior complaints. I remember other articles too, I just don't feel like taking the time and energy to go back and find them all. Plus JB is obviously capable of making a good argument without help anyway.
Here is a link from a very recent Post article restating the dog's "priors." http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8...
From prosecutor Roberto Ramirez >> "... biting Hardin was strike four for Rolo, referring to two previous complaints that the dog was loose and a problem with barking that prompted Hagan to have Rolo's vocal chords altered." Strike FOUR? WTF?! I also read elsewhere (and I think that also includes transcripts posted on the Rolo website) that he attacked another dog while out for a walk, but that attack was never reported officially. I guess someone just thought it would be better to work it out privately between parties, as Retread has suggested (which made sense to me until I read this article).
Gawd, that poor, spoiled pup. Well at least he lives, has an opportunity for constructive training time with his owner, and that there is hope for first offense biters. That's a good thing for those of us that own large dogs, because you can never say never. I hope for the animal's sake that Hagan takes Rolo and his buddies away from town, esp. where kids are in close proximity.